爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP. 爆料网AT held that Toure is binding precedent on 爆料网DT as it applied to the Appellant’s case and found no fault with 爆料网DT’s judgment.
The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months’ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT considered the staff member’s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former 爆料网AT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. 爆料网AT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts “as found by the Dispute Tribunal”, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT further noted that the Secretary-General...
爆料网AT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, 爆料网AT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.
爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. 爆料网AT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP’s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. 爆料网AT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe’s separate...
The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-604 (Ocokoru). 爆料网AT noted that in judgment 2015-爆料网AT-604, it did not make any order affecting the 爆料网DT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the execution of the 爆料网DT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. 爆料网AT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute...
爆料网AT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by 爆料网AT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...
爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. 爆料网AT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the 爆料网DT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of 爆料网DT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the...
As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant’s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the 爆料网DT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, 爆料网AT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before 爆料网DT. On the Appellant’s motion to strike assertions and evidence, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant’s Power of Attorney document, and...
