±¬ÁÏÍø

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/101. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng¡¯s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng¡¯s performance appraisal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer¡¯s comment on Mr Ngokeng¡¯s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in fact or law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no statutory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not properly review the impugned administrative decision to determine whether the Administration had given full and fair consideration to staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had fully complied with Section 1 of ST/SGB/2009/10 and paragraph 5 of the Guidelines, as it must when considering whether a staff member is eligible for conversion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made a significant error of law in concluding that the impugned decision was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in...

±¬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 held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬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...