±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT, applying Bertucci (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, therefore, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

In judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050/Corr. 1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable for not being filed against a final judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/038. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Regarding judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/038, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred on questions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order as not receivable, finding that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.