±¬ÁÏÍø

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his ±¬ÁÏÍøDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ICTR Registrar¡¯s decision was lawful, and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in the level of award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant¡¯s claims for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in view of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could find no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, which accorded with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since that ground was sufficient to affirm the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and to dismiss the appeal, there was no need for it to determine whether the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT challenged a specific implied administrative decision on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF or whether the Appellant was merely making general complaints about ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s failure to protect him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s retirement benefit from the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words ¡°gross¡± and ¡°net¡± was merely semantic. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ,for various reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...