±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal found a number of the Applicant's claims to not be receievable. The Tribunal found that the primary reason for the refusal of the Applicant's request to extend her time telecommuting was that the Applicant¡¯s role as a child protection officer needed presence on the ground and that telecommuting was not appropriate for the functions of her role. The Applicant did not have a medical exemption to telecommute. The record showed that the reason was true and that the Applicant was afforded the same discretion as other members of her team. The Tribunal therefore found no indication of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. The case was remanded to another ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that failing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant¡¯s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

On appeal by the Secretary-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a proper consideration of the whole of the evidence could only have led to one conclusion, and that is that the individual assaulted the victim. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not consider the evidence objectively, specifically by giving misplaced importance to minor inconsistencies, coming to unreasonable conclusions on the facts which were not supported by the evidence, and making speculations instead of...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-604 (Ocokoru). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in judgment 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to fully assess...

Estoppel - It was argued on behalf of the Respondent that the Applicant has waived or is estopped from enforcing his right to challenge the contested decision since at the Applicant¡¯s request, the Administration in good faith deferred the effective date of termination of his appointment to enable him to acquire a pension benefit. Given the circumstances of this case, the Applicant had neither waived nor was he estopped from enforcing his rights to challenge the contested decision. The principles of waiver and estoppel will not apply in such a case to deny an Applicant from enforcing his legal...