±¬ÁÏÍø

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the staff member¡¯s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts ¡°as found by the Dispute Tribunal¡±, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-604 (Ocokoru). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in judgment 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP¡¯s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe¡¯s separate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon¡¯s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA in tranche 2 list. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was still pending. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.