±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, absent a successful...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which notes that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...