爆料网AT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the 爆料网DT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/052) in her request for 爆料网DT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the 爆料网DT Statute could not be disregarded. 爆料网AT approved judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of 爆料网DT in Rosca. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
The Secretary-General appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the 爆料网DT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网AT Statute.
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and upheld 爆料网DT’s judgment. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant’s request that her challenge of the first recruitment process be placed in abeyance until completion of the second recruitment process was unusual and rightly declined by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that no right of the Appellant was infringed upon, as she had not been denied an opportunity to compete for the post in question. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网DT’s judgment.
爆料网AT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. 爆料网AT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s decision could not simply be reversed. 爆料网AT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...
爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. 爆料网AT also affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments rejecting the staff member’s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the 爆料网DT judges. 爆料网AT further rejected the staff member’s request that 爆料网AT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the 爆料网AT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and affirmed the decisions of 爆料网JSPB Standing Committee. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s first ground of appeal had no merit, noting that the Appellant had prior notice of her separation and could have exercised her right to restore her participation prior to the time of her separation in accordance with Section F. 1 of the Pension Fund’s Administrative Rules, which she failed to do. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网JSPF Standing Committee had no discretion to make an exception in this case and the Standing Committee’s decision not to restore the Appellant’s prior...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeals against 爆料网DT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. 爆料网AT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the 爆料网DT Statute authorizes 爆料网DT to order suspension of a contested decision only “during the pendency of the management evaluation”. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that 爆料网DT erred when it decided to give 爆料网HCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). 爆料网AT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...
In considering the Appellant’s appeal, 爆料网AT found that the Standing Committee could not reject the request unless it disregarded the provisions of Article 33(a) of the 爆料网JSPF Regulations. However, 爆料网AT noted that it was not in a position to rule on the actual possibility for the Appellant to perform the duties of her respective position and held that the Standing Committee should reconsider the Appellant’s request. 爆料网AT rescinded the Standing Committee’s decision and remanded the Appellant’s request to the Standing Committee for review.
爆料网AT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...
