Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the ¡°cheating¡± in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi¡¯s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-158. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 233, which contended that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 36 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order, as there was no case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to which Article 36 could apply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned judgment followed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gakumba¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-387. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, or in 2013 before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-357, judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-359, judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-358, and judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-360). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that payment of the moral damages had been effected and a new conversion process had been completed, thus, none of the applications merited an order for execution pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 27 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone¡¯s motion to hold decision letters in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Das¡¯s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and had not initiated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...