±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the present motion was distinguishable from a typical motion for withdrawal of an appeal: the non-moving party objects to the withdrawal as a revised appeal would enable the Secretary-General to address arguments included in the answer and, second, the Secretary-General still deems it necessary to pursue an appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its reiteration in a recent case that appeals on the merits and relief should be considered together had not been new and was an insufficient basis on which to request the filing of a revised appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that when the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was not receivable because the impugned Order was not appealable and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had acted within its competence and jurisdiction in finding that the non-renewal decision had been prima facie lawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s request for reinstatement to his previous position could be considered as ¡°temporary relief to prevent irreparable harm¡± but it was instead an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the suspension of action which was not permitted. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that granting the staff member¡¯s request would not maintain consistency with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the presented reasons for an extension did not qualify as exceptional circumstances and did not necessitate an extension in the interest of justice. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion for an extension of the time limit to file the appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief which was consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment; on the contrary, he sought the opposite, i.e., anonymization which the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal had not granted him. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment was res judicata as to the question of anonymity and could be reversed, if at all, only through a revision of judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the staff member¡¯s motion for interim measures.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member's motion for the production of evidence did not meet the criteria set out in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Rules of Procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of the additional evidence on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, moreover, the staff member had not demonstrated that any relevant fact was likely to be established with the staff member¡¯s half-brother, Mr. SRB¡¯s employment history sought to be produced or that it would be in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed his appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment on his application for execution before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment in the underlying case was issued and the Commissioner-General had an opportunity to address the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment before submitting the answer to the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that given these circumstances, it was in the interest of procedural fairness to allow the staff member to submit additional pleadings 20 days from the issuance of the Order and not exceeding five pages. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion for additional pleadings.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion for recusal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registrar had no merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to administratively close the case had been taken by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT President and communicated to the parties as such by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registrar in her letter. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it followed from the administrative closure of a case that parties no longer had the right to access the Court Case Management System under the case number in question. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registrar¡¯s decisions to reject as manifestly inadmissible the staff member¡¯s filings following the case...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, by the rationale applicable to appeals and specific claims, allowed the staff member to withdraw the earlier motion without justification. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion to withdraw the motion to increase the page limit of the appeal brief.