爆料网AT affirmed that the circumstances of the allegation of unsatisfactory conduct in the present case created the obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation. However, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT erred in awarding damages to Mr Abboud while finding that he had not suffered any economic loss and that no actual damage existed. 爆料网AT rescinded the 爆料网DT’s judgment to the extent that it awarded damages to Mr Abboud.
爆料网AT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-209. 爆料网AT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. 爆料网AT held that the application was submitted almost one year...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established 爆料网AT jurisprudence. However, 爆料网AT also held that parties before 爆料网DT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by 爆料网DT remained legally valid until such time as 爆料网AT vacated it. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with 爆料网DT’s order was vexatious. 爆料网AT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal in part.
Accountability Referral: The 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of 爆料网AT, 爆料网AT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...
On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, 爆料网AT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. 爆料网AT held that: 爆料网DT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; 爆料网DT correctly applied the jurisprudence of 爆料网AT in the definition of...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网DT...
爆料网AT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of 爆料网AT in terms of Article 10(2) of the 爆料网AT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...
爆料网AT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. 爆料网AT considered Mr Ross’s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. 爆料网AT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ms Kortes’ cross-appeal. 爆料网AT held that the issue was whether 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration’s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...
