±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT interpreted the application as a request for a correction of the previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the case file of the former United Nations Administrative Tribunal revealed that the President of that Tribunal had extended the deadline for filing the appeal but a copy of that decision had not been placed in the file submitted to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that it had rendered its judgment to reject the appeal, without being aware of the President's decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that the staff member's appeal was received by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, citing the principle of res judicata, noted that the authority of a final judgment could not be so readily set aside. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the limited grounds and the gravest of reasons required for setting aside a final judgment by an appellate court are not met in this case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as the staff member also acknowledges, the current request fell outside of the permissible grounds for revision, correction, or interpretation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided that there were no grounds for it to review this matter in any way, dismissed the staff member's application and affirmed the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General has discretion in the appointment of staff, he has no discretion to impose unwritten regulations and rules that are prejudicial to staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and the moving party. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that pursuant to Article 30 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had very thoroughly considered the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute nor the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...