±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-936 by Mr Diallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT admitted on appeal the...

Admissibility: The parameters of what is admissible before this court is provided for in Article 18 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure. In relevant part, the Article states that the Tribunal shall determine the admissibility of any evidence; and that it may exclude evidence which it considers irrelevant, frivolous or lacking in probative value. Workplan/EPAS: It is the responsibility of the first reporting officer to set out the work plan with the Applicant; to conduct the mid-point review and the final appraisal; and to provide supervision on the overall work of the Applicant during the course...

Neither the Statute nor the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal prescribe the form of the parties¡¯ submissions filed in accordance with an order of the Tribunal. In the absence of such provisions, the matter falls under article 36 of the Rules of Procedures. The respondent has not specified anything in the form of the applicant¡¯s submission that substantively breaches his obligations under the directions made in the Tribunal¡¯s order¡ªthe use of the word ¡°grounds¡± in a subheading instead of ¡°issues¡± is not a significant difference and generally it is of no importance which template the applicant...

The Applicant sought a further extension of time on 16 October 2009 to file her substantive application after the Tribunal had previously granted her 21 days to do so. This extension expired on 16 October 2009. The Tribunal noted that: the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had applied to withdraw from representing the Applicant for want of instructions; the request for extension was filed on the date of expiry of the previous Order, and moved the Tribunal for a further extension of 1 year; the Applicant alluded to ¡°direct negotiations¡± being underway; ¡°with the Respondent in this matter¡±, but failed to...

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant¡¯s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.

Two types of interim measures - with different functions, preconditions, restrictions and scope - have to be clearly distinguished. Art. 13 RoP has to be applied exclusively during the pendency of the management evaluation, whereas art. 14 RoP is appropriate only during judicial review in terms of art. 2 and 8 Statute; in short: it is either 13 or 14 ¨C never both. Orders based on art. 13 RoP become ineffective with the end of management evaluation. The present application had to be considered under art. 13 RoP since the contested decision of 12 October 2009 was released under new conditions...

The Applicant did not actively or diligently pursue his case because: he failed to give instructions to his Counsel in respect to his challenge against the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment; he had been informed about the Status Conference by his Counsel and had failed to make an appearance or to contact the Tribunal to give reasons for his absence; his Counsel had advised that as far as she was concerned, the substantive matter in the application had been resolved; and from the documents tendered by the Respondent, the Tribunal was convinced that the substantive matter in the...