As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from 爆料网OPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to 爆料网OPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to 爆料网OPS, and to separate her from 爆料网OPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not err in holding that the Appellant’s challenges were time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from 爆料网OPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to 爆料网DT’s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...
爆料网AT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute must be read literally to prohibit 爆料网DT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that 爆料网DT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. 爆料网AT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfort爆料网ATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.
As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网JSPF correctly applied Article 45 of the 爆料网JPSF Regulations and relied on an internationally binding judgment about spousal and child support, issued by an Austrian court, which was not contradicted by the divorce decree issued by a Portuguese court. 爆料网AT found no error of law or fact such as to vitiate the contested decision and upheld 爆料网JSPF’s “reasoned and well-founded decision.” 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网JPSB decision.
爆料网AT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find “good cause” to waive the sixty days’ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the 爆料网JSPF Administrative Rules. 爆料网AT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between 爆料网JSPF and CTBTO. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. 爆料网AT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which “embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,” nor an “administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ”...
爆料网AT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging 爆料网DT’s determination that the decision not to investigate 爆料网SU election matters was receivable. 爆料网AT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. 爆料网AT noted that although 爆料网DT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General’s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, 爆料网DT found in favour of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Goodwin’s cross-appeal. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that 爆料网DT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. 爆料网AT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-134) on the 爆料网DT’s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB’s recommendation, 爆料网AT found that compensation in the amount of two years’ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether 爆料网DT erred in concluding...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Skourikhine’s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration’s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...
The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the 爆料网DT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. 爆料网AT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. 爆料网AT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...
