±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that parties before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT remained legally valid until such time as ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order was vexatious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...

±¬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 an appeal of Order No. 079. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regardless of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute precluded an appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT if ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.