±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, when the Appellant contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant¡¯s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

The staff member appealed seven ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.

The staff member appealed seven ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal limited to the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding costs against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the jurisdiction of a tribunal to award costs is narrowly restricted to instances where a party has manifestly abused the proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave no reasons for its determination that the Appellant had manifestly abused the proceedings, cited no evidence establishing that his application was frivolous or vexatious, or that he had deliberately delayed the proceedings, or had disobeyed an order of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or had, in any other way, abused ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the award of costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the calling of a witness in good faith and with the reasonable aim to bolster the views of the Administration did not constitute an abuse of process warranting the award of legal costs and granted the appeal on that point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the award of prospective compensation of the monetary equivalent of the Special Post Allowance for an uncertain duration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the award of compensation for loss of opportunity...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant¡¯s appeal due to lack of legal representation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...