爆料网AT considered the appeal while the application for revision before 爆料网DT was still pending. 爆料网AT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.
爆料网AT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the 爆料网AT judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon’s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...
爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. 爆料网AT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP’s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. 爆料网AT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe’s separate...
The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-604 (Ocokoru). 爆料网AT noted that in judgment 2015-爆料网AT-604, it did not make any order affecting the 爆料网DT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the execution of the 爆料网DT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. 爆料网AT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute...
The Applicant filed a second application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-774 and an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-827. Subsequently, the Applicant requested leave to withdraw these two applications. 爆料网AT granted leave to withdraw the applications and directed the Registrar to close the cases.
爆料网AT considered Mr Newland’s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-820. 爆料网AT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. 爆料网AT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. 爆料网AT held that Mr Newland’s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. 爆料网AT...
Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of 爆料网AT judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-807. 爆料网AT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe’s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of 爆料网AT’s order in the judgment. 爆料网AT held that, although 爆料网AT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. 爆料网AT held that it was egregious that 爆料网JSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. 爆料网AT considered Ms Bezziccheri’s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of 爆料网AT can be revised, 爆料网AT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to 爆料网AT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, 爆料网AT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...
The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-爆料网AT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of 爆料网HCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to 爆料网AT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by 爆料网AT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required 爆料网AT to revise its judgment. 爆料网AT held that neither the remand order of 爆料网AT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...
