±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Gakumba¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-387. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or in 2013 before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Das¡¯s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and had not initiated it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-357, judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-359, judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-358, and judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-360). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that payment of the moral damages had been effected and a new conversion process had been completed, thus, none of the applications merited an order for execution pursuant to Article 11(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Article 27 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone¡¯s motion to hold decision letters in...

±¬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 preliminarily dismissed the Appellant¡¯s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by concluding that ST/AI/2002/3 applied to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF, as the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Handbook establishes the procedure that a staff member must follow should they wish to rebut the content of their performance report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the principle articulated in Villamoran v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), which holds that administrative issuances have greater legal authority over manuals such as the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF Handbook, only where there is a conflict between guidelines and manuals and a properly promulgated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal as to whether Ms Carrabregu was eligible to be considered for a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the factual sequence clearly showed that Ms Carrabregu freely and willingly resigned from her service with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP to take up an appointment with a different entity (±¬ÁÏÍøV), thereby causing a break in service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this break in service should have led ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to uphold the administrative decision that Ms Carrabregu was not eligible for conversion to a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that Ms Carrabregu¡¯s service to ±¬ÁÏÍøV could not be...