±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was problematic because the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its determination.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that in accordance with the Area Staff Rules, which provided for the application of the last published interest rate up to and including the month immediately preceding payment to the calculation of a staff member¡¯s Provident Fund benefits. Given that the staff member made his request on 23 December 2020, the applicable legal instrument in the present case was PFS/19/2020 issued on 12 December 2020, and not PFS/20/2020 issued on 13 January 2021 as...

Since the Applicant¡¯s re-employment and new appointment occurred after 1 July 2007, his eligibility to participate in ASHI is contingent on his fulfilling the criteria laid out in sec. 2.1(a)(ii) of ST/AI/2007/3. Specifically, he is required to have been a participant in a contributory health insurance plan of the United Nations for a minimum of ten years.

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.

The Applicant in this case did not requested a review of the impugned decision by management evaluation, thus depriving the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to consider this matter any further.