Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar in her letter. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.