±¬ÁÏÍø

On the alleged procedural error of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was well within the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed this ground of appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, affirming the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the ¡°cheating¡± in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi¡¯s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-139. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reference made by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-158. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-154. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the application.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the impugned judgment followed ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that due...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 233, which contended that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 36 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order, as there was no case before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to which Article 36 could apply. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that Article 36 does not allow ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to...