Search
2013-爆料网AT-392, Maghari
爆料网AT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-039. 爆料网AT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the 爆料网AT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
2013-爆料网AT-393, Applicant
爆料网AT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-209. 爆料网AT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. 爆料网AT held that the application was submitted almost one year...
2013-爆料网AT-381, Applicant
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/159; an appeal by the “Applicant” (anonymity granted) against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/079. On receivability, 爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s case that 爆料网DT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...
2013-爆料网AT-382, Adewusi
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the placement of the Appellant on SLWOP enabled him to preserve his pension benefits, granted him the opportunity of remaining a staff member for the purpose of applying as an internal candidate for other positions, and made his relocation possible. 爆料网AT held that there was no abuse of authority or deliberate attempt to harm, as argued by the Appellant, but rather the Organisation adopted a protective approach. Noting that, due to the downsizing exercise related to the Appellant’s post and his reassignment, he was not entitled to SLWFP and his...
2013-爆料网AT-383, Bofill
On the Appellant’s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, 爆料网AT did not find that 爆料网DT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and 爆料网DT’s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. 爆料网AT held that there was no error by 爆料网DT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding...
2013-爆料网AT-384, McCluskey
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT noted that it was technically improper for 爆料网DT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. 爆料网AT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant’s claim could not succeed. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely made statements and referred to facts that were not timely contested, without providing any evidence or contesting the reasoning of the first instance judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the...
2013-爆料网AT-385, Samuel Thambiah
爆料网AT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that 爆料网DT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on 爆料网DT’s part. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with 爆料网DT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...
2013-爆料网AT-386, Ahmed
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the payment of interest awarded by 爆料网DT on the payment of Mr Ahmed’s accrued vacation days was undue, noting that any delay in the separation formalities was entirely attributable to him and, as such, he could not be compensated for the delay in payment. On the compensation in lieu of notice, 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT judgment and held that the matter was properly before 爆料网DT and could not be construed as res judicata. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Administration made a commitment to pay Mr Ahmed compensation in lieu of notice and...
2013-爆料网AT-375, Schoone
爆料网AT considered appeals from both Mr Schoone and the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, for the reasons set forth in judgment Nos. 2013-爆料网AT-357 (Malmstrom et al. ), 2013-爆料网AT-358 (Longone) and 2013-爆料网AT-359 (Ademagic et al. ), the delegation of authority granted to the ICTY Registrar could not be construed so as to grant him the authority to convert staff members’ fixed-term appointments into permanent appointments. 爆料网AT recalled that in those three cases it had held that the decision-making authority to grant permanent appointments was properly vested in the Assistant Secretary-General for...
2013-爆料网AT-376, Williams
Noting the Secretary-General’s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute, 爆料网AT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited 爆料网AT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. 爆料网AT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...
2013-爆料网AT-377, Balinge
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of 爆料网AT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT noted that a litigant’s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. 爆料网AT held that it was not the task of 爆料网DT (or 爆料网AT)...
2013-爆料网AT-378, Ivanov
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure’s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration’s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...
2013-爆料网AT-379, Andersson
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that 爆料网DT erred in “double-counting” by using the same element of Mr Andersson’s high chance of promotion to justify both its award of CHF 10,000 in lieu of rescission, as well as its award of CHF 4,000 for moral damages. The claim for moral damages was related to the reparation of an injury, that could not be regarded as covered by the payment of CHF 10,000 awarded as an alternative to rescission. 爆料网AT also rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that Mr Andersson only fleetingly referred to...
2013-爆料网AT-380, Cooke
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT considered that 爆料网DT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke’s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. 爆料网AT held that when it determines that 爆料网DT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. 爆料网AT clarified that this did not...
2013-爆料网AT-373, Czaran
爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment was not manifestly unreasonable in concluding that the date upon which the Appellant was on notice that he had received a response from the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) or that it was his responsibility to read the MEU response as soon as possible. On the question of whether 爆料网DT erred in law and/or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in declining to consider the case on the merits, 爆料网AT held that, in the absence of a prior written request for a suspension or waiver of the time limit for filing his application, 爆料网DT was not competent to consider the issue...
2013-爆料网AT-374, Koutang
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that it could not sustain the conclusion of 爆料网DT that Mr Koutang’s actions did not amount to misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the sanction imposed was not unreasonable, absurd, or disproportionate and, as such, 爆料网AT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration’s broad discretion in disciplinary matters. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.
2013-爆料网AT-368, Roig
爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the request for management evaluation was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the 60-day time limit for the purpose of requesting management evaluation of a non-selection decision started on 29 October 2010, when the staff member was informed of her non-selection, and not on 17 December 2010, when she learned of the identity of the selected candidate. 爆料网AT held that there was no second administrative decision that reset the time limit; rather, the staff member learning the identity of the selected candidate was a consequence of the administrative decision...
2013-爆料网AT-369, Darwish
爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General’s reply before 爆料网RWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected 爆料网RWA DT’s decision on receivability, 爆料网AT found no merit on this ground. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning on the issue of EVR. 爆料网AT held that, absent an appealable...
2013-爆料网AT-370, Bi Bea
爆料网AT vacated 爆料网DT’s award of CHF 5,000. 爆料网AT held that, while 爆料网DT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Secretary-General’s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. 爆料网AT held that, before 爆料网DT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...
2013-爆料网AT-371, Brisson
爆料网AT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. 爆料网AT held that, as the Appellant’s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. 爆料网AT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.