±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registrar had no merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registrar in her letter. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted in...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization¡¯s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...