±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute had been met. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consider the appeal receivable and find that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision and did not amount to claims that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that parties before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT remained legally valid until such time as ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order was vexatious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while only final judgments of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeding its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.