±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 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 held that there was merit in the Appellant¡¯s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-516 wherein ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the only...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to file a reply to the Respondent¡¯s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s second motion seeking leave to present additional ¡°information¡± which she claimed related to...

±¬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 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 considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬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 configured 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...

±¬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...

±¬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...