±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member sought to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant¡¯s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.

Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that when the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment where the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...