爆料网AT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
爆料网AT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of 爆料网AT’s competence. 爆料网AT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the staff member’s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. 爆料网AT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网DT...
爆料网AT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-363. 爆料网AT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. 爆料网AT dismissed both applications.
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. 爆料网AT found no error in 爆料网DT’s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT summary judgment.
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. 爆料网AT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, 爆料网AT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...
爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the Appellant’s case did not constitute “exceptional cases,” so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the 爆料网AT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT found no reversible error in 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...
爆料网AT considered the appeal, specifically whether 爆料网RWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members’ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether 爆料网RWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. 爆料网AT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before 爆料网RWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT noted that while 爆料网RWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...
爆料网AT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. 爆料网AT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant’s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, 爆料网AT did not find any fault with 爆料网RWA DT’s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...
爆料网AT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which 爆料网DT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. 爆料网AT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to 爆料网DT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated 爆料网DT’s judgment, and remanded the matter to 爆料网DT.
