±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisifed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...

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...

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years¡¯ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months¡¯ net...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

Mr. Okwir appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.