Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, applying Bertucci (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

The Secretary-General claimed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no power to award interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when the new system was created, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and raised it for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr. 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr.1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...