New York | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-118, Abu-Hawaila

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT was not persuaded that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in its judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to 罌厭弝ⅰDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the settlement...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-108, Ajdini et al.

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as 罌厭弝ⅰAT had consistently held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. 罌厭弝ⅰAT allowed the appeal and set aside the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-109, Hastings

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-110, Abbassi

11 Mar 2011

The staff member appealed on the ground that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, 罌厭弝ⅰAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by 罌厭弝ⅰDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-107, Chen

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to 罌厭弝ⅰ staff. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that 罌厭弝ⅰDT awarded damages from the correct date. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Administration＊s allegation that 罌厭弝ⅰDT usurped the Secretary-General＊s...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-106, Piskolti

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Mr Paskolti＊s application for revision of former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute and Article 24 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on 罌厭弝ⅰAT to review a judgment of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-103, Abboud

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which 罌厭弝ⅰAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The 罌厭弝ⅰAT affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-104, Sanwidi

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal of judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2010/061 on compensation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-105, Fuentes

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes＊ appeal against the reclassification decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-162, Azzouni

21 Oct 2011

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-罌厭弝ⅰAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years＊ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...