±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the written witness statement sought to be submitted constituted new and additional evidence on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was apparent that the staff member had known of the evidence at the Dispute Tribunal but, as he noted in his motion and appeal brief, had relied on other grounds which he believed were sufficient to substantiate his claims without risking exposing the witness. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this rendered his request to submit additional evidence on appeal inadmissible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion for leave to submit a confidential witness statement.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s request that it suspend the time limit for filing the answer until the motion for summary judgment was decided was moot because the Secretary-General had already filed the answer. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the timing of the Secretary-General¡¯s request for a suspension of the time limit had been most impractical as the staff member would not have the opportunity to comment on the motion for summary judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless found that, given that the pleadings were complete, it was most practicable to decide this appeal during its regular session as...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted with concern that the JAB had been dismantled temporarily without prior warning given to ISA staff members and with no reasons provided by the Administration; it was also alarming that the Administration had dismantled the JAB with no successor in place, denying the staff members access to justice in the interim. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there were no judgments or decisions from the JAB against which the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT could evaluate the requested relief. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motions had become moot as the JAB had since been reconstituted and a panel to consider the requests for suspension...