The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-爆料网AT-034. 爆料网AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where 爆料网DT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that even though 爆料网DT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-014 by Mr Luvai. 爆料网AT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before 爆料网DT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then 爆料网DT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. 爆料网AT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. 爆料网AT denied the application.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-015 by Ms. Macharia. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. 爆料网AT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the 爆料网DT Judge in her decision. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable for being time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly found the application not receivable ratione materiae since the Appellant had not contested an administrative decision and had erroneously filed his appeal with the International Joint Appeals Board. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT was correct in applying Former 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant’s pay-out and that 爆料网RWA DT had not erred in this regard. 爆料网AT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant’s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 爆料网RWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant’s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall’s conduct into question. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. 爆料网AT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by 爆料网DT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had applied an unduly restrictive...
爆料网AT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr’s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr’s complaints. 爆料网AT held that, by virtue of the “dysfunctional” work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the evidence on which the disciplinary measure was based, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had failed to appreciate the fact that the women who had been sexually exploited or abused came from a highly sensitive cultural background and were socially vulnerable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT failed to consider the fact that the staff member, as Officer-in-Charge of Security of MINURSO, had a particular duty of care towards women and children, pursuant to Section 7 of ST/SGB/1999/13. 爆料网AT held that the established facts amounted to sexual exploitation. 爆料网AT...
