The staff member appealed seven 爆料网DT judgments. 爆料网AT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the sanction was not disproportionate and noted that the Secretary-General could have chosen to summarily dismiss Mr Nasrallah or to separate him without compensation and indemnities. 爆料网AT held that, although no investigation was necessary as the facts were not contested, the Organisation committed an egregious error in taking almost two years to finalise the disciplinary proceedings. 爆料网AT noted that this delay worked in Mr Nasrallah’s favour, permitting him to benefit from two years’ further service. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-131 by Ms Cohen. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute or Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about 爆料网AT reducing the compensation awarded. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. 爆料网AT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that therefore 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before 爆料网AT for consideration. 爆料网AT held that...
爆料网AT held that neither Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application before 爆料网DT was not receivable because 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. 爆料网AT held that, while it confirmed the 爆料网DT’s conclusion, it found that 爆料网DT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that there was no error in 爆料网DT’s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of 爆料网DT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. 爆料网AT observed that it should never have been called on to review the 爆料网DT’s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. 爆料网AT opined that the...
爆料网AT considered Mr Elasoud’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-173. 爆料网AT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and 爆料网AT were not aware when his appeal was considered. 爆料网AT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered Mr Gharemani’s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-171. 爆料网AT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. 爆料网AT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the request was time-barred...
爆料网AT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. 爆料网AT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the 爆料网IFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay’s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. 爆料网AT held that it was correct to conclude, as 爆料网DT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...
爆料网AT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before 爆料网DT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the 爆料网DT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. 爆料网AT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...
