±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that failing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the paragraphs of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT (by audio conference) as verified by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist ±¬ÁÏÍøAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF decision before appealing to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not correctly apply the law in considering Mr Riecan¡¯s challenge to the selection for the post and made errors of law and fact in accepting the staff member¡¯s application. On the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was a duty of the assessment panel in the course of a selection process to consider the e-PAS reports of the candidate and reflect that consideration in its own report, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that (1) ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into...