±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that when the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and upheld...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment which would...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT referenced the Shanks jurisprudence (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-026bis) where it held that the authority of a final judgment - res judicata - cannot be so readily set aside. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there are only limited grounds as enumerated in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute for review of a final judgment and an allegation of an error in law is not one of them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application to set aside and remand the previous judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly stated that the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal considered and rejected all of the Appellant¡¯s other pleas and that for this reason, the matter of interest was res judicata. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered the Secretary-General to make a payment of USD 25,000 as compensation for the excessive and inordinate delays and the emotional harm and to arrange for a Medical Board to consider outstanding invoices. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as the Secretary-General did not appeal, he had therefore accepted the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision and financial award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...