±¬ÁÏÍø

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, contrary to the findings by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

±¬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 submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure gives ±¬ÁÏÍøDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...