爆料网AT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. Accordingly, 爆料网AT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.
爆料网AT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. 爆料网AT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. 爆料网AT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant’s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s finding that...
爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. 爆料网AT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the 爆料网DT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of 爆料网DT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that 爆料网DT clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence when it reassigned the cases. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT decision on assignment and reassignment of judges are matters of case management and the fair and efficient functioning of the tribunal’s processes and within the 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that there had been no removal or replacement of Judge Downing, but rather that his term had expired. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not clearly exceed its jurisdiction and the appeals were not receivable. 爆料网AT also noted that it does...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. 爆料网AT held that he did not demonstrate that 爆料网DT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. 爆料网AT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. 爆料网AT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the 爆料网DT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 爆料网AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 爆料网AT on her application for a suspension of action. 爆料网AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...
爆料网AT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. 爆料网AT held that, regardless of whether 爆料网DT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute precluded an appeal to 爆料网AT if 爆料网DT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Order.
On the request for the oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether 爆料网DT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, 爆料网AT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) 爆料网DT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...
爆料网AT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained 爆料网DT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the 爆料网DT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.
