Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience orale, concluant qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire ou aiderait ¨¤ l'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte visant ¨¤ ¨¦tendre les droits de l'appelant en tant que membre du personnel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune circonstance exceptionnelle qui justifierait l'octroi de la requ¨ºte et la requ¨ºte a configur¨¦ une tentative de compl¨¦ter les arguments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s dans les soumissions d'appel. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte pour que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT retire l'immunit¨¦ de certains membres du personnel si son appel ¨¦chouait, Unat a jug¨¦ que la...

Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience orale, concluant qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire ou aiderait ¨¤ l'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte visant ¨¤ ¨¦tendre les droits de l'appelant en tant que membre du personnel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait aucune circonstance exceptionnelle qui justifierait l'octroi de la requ¨ºte et que la requ¨ºte ¨¦tait une tentative de compl¨¦ter les arguments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s dans les soumissions d'appel. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte pour que Unat supprime l'immunit¨¦ de certains membres du personnel si son appel ¨¦chouait, Unat a jug¨¦ que la...

Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience orale, concluant qu'il n'¨¦tait pas n¨¦cessaire ou aiderait ¨¤ l'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte visant ¨¤ ¨¦tendre les droits de l'appelant en tant que membre du personnel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas de circonstances exceptionnelles qui justifieraient l'octroi de la requ¨ºte et que la requ¨ºte ¨¦tait essentiellement une tentative de compl¨¦ter les arguments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s dans les soumissions d'appel. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte pour que Unat supprime l'immunit¨¦ de certains membres du personnel si son appel ¨¦chouait...

Unat a constat¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ne r¨¦pondait pas aux demandes des membres du personnel pour une prolongation du d¨¦lai et qui avait plut?t converti Sua Sponte les demandes de prolongation du d¨¦lai en applications ?incompl¨¨tes?, jugeant les demandes non ¨¤ la cr¨¦ance. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas offert aux membres du personnel la possibilit¨¦ de d¨¦poser une demande. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait d¨¦pass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence et sa juridiction et commis des erreurs de proc¨¦dure lorsqu'elle a d¨¦termin¨¦ que les demandes de prolongation du d¨¦lai ¨¦taient ?l'¨¦quivalent? des demandes; a d¨¦duit que les d¨¦clarations...

Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience orale concluant qu'une audience orale n'¨¦tait ni n¨¦cessaire ni aider ¨¤ l'¨¦limination rapide et ¨¦quitable de l'affaire. En ce qui concerne la requ¨ºte de l¡¯appelant, Unat a jug¨¦ qu¡¯il n¡¯y avait aucune situation exceptionnelle qui justifierait l¡¯octroi de la requ¨ºte. Unat a soutenu que la requ¨ºte ¨¦tait essentiellement une tentative de l'appelant de compl¨¦ter les arguments d¨¦j¨¤ pr¨¦sent¨¦s dans ses soumissions d'appel. Unat a rejet¨¦ la requ¨ºte. En ce qui concerne les soumissions de l'appel, Unat a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait commis une erreur en droit en rejetant la...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on several issues, being the first one whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in determining that the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the separation decision was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant did not file an application within the 90-day calendar period established in Article 8. 1(d)(i)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. With respect to the issue of whether there is a contradiction between Neault (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-345) and Gallo (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-552), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no discrepancy between Neault and Gallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ratio of both judgments is that where...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson¡¯s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no basis for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that ¡°no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson¡¯s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ¡± Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-516 wherein Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee correctly determined that the applicable rules provide that the pension participant is required to inform Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in writing of the benefit election made and of any commutation elected and that there was no provision for third party advisement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee¡¯s reliance on Article 30(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations as a rationale for its finding that a deferred retirement benefit became payable to Ms. Assebe upon her separation from service was flawed on the basis that she did not elect for a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was disingenuous for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

The issue for determination by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the absence of any published Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...