±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal, set aside the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, therefore, that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. The case was remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to be heard afresh.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred on questions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT summary judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to conduct a fresh investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...