±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB, holding that the ITLOS was not obliged to conclude the recruitment exercise once it had begun, and that it had the authority to cancel the process. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was concerned by the change to the recruitment procedure during the course of the contested recruitment, but could not discern how this affected Mr. Savadogo¡¯s candidacy. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ITLOS JAB that Mr. Savadogo¡¯s allegations of bias against the Registrar in the recruitment were countered by the fact that the President of ITLOS made the significant decisions in the recruitment...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and upheld...

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment which would...

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years¡¯ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months¡¯ net...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were unaware of various ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also reasoned prior ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgments do not...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against Order No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/O/2010/023 by the Secretary-General. Applying the principle that a party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the judgment on legal or academic grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Order had no practical effect following the withdrawal of the request for suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was moot as it was academic and sought an opinion regarding the issues raised in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.