Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit on this ground. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent an appealable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in its determination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as of 30 June 2009, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-185. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/129 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/130. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since it had rescinded the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the ¡°Observations¡± of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, ¡°Observations¡± in the manner in which it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination on the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to make ¡°Observations¡± as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...