Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order denying revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is an issue of law, not of fact.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach in considering the Appellant¡¯s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not the function of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/062. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in order for the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for translator services at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI could...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT having stepped into the shoes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Medical Director. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.