±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman¡¯s Office is not sufficient in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made to its own judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant¡¯s application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Appellant¡¯s application and ordered the correction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that, in actuality, the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT erred in making an award of interest, which ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are final and without appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this attempt to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT on her application for a suspension of action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the legality and rationality of the Administration¡¯s conclusion that it was not in its interests to retain the Appellant because he did not possess the relevant language skills. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was necessary for the Administration to take into consideration the interests, needs, and operational realities of the Organisation when determining the suitability of staff members for a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was undoubtedly a rational basis for the denial of a permanent appointment for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that irrespective of whether the Appellant was...