2010-爆料网AT-057, Fagundes
爆料网AT noted that when the new system was created, 爆料网DT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that 爆料网DT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1, Nasr Ishak
In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...
2010-爆料网AT-041, Balestrieri
爆料网AT held that her appointment was terminated due to a lack of funding; several of her colleagues also had their fixed-term appointments terminated for the same reason at the same time. 爆料网AT held that the fact that the Appellant may have complained about her working conditions or cooperated in any subsequent preliminary investigation into possible harassment, did not on its face exposes her to the termination. 爆料网AT held that there was no reversible error on part of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
2010-爆料网AT-020, Adwan
In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, 爆料网AT preliminarily held that the 爆料网RWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; 爆料网AT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that it was within 爆料网RWA’s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant’s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA’s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant’s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.
2010-爆料网AT-019, Carranza
爆料网AT confirmed the 爆料网JSPB’s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the 爆料网JSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.
2010-爆料网AT-015, Macharia
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. 爆料网AT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the appeal.
2010-爆料网AT-009, James
爆料网AT considered Mr James’ appeal and the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed Mr James’ appeal that 爆料网DT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. 爆料网AT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. 爆料网AT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...
2010-爆料网AT-001, Campos
爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. 爆料网AT also affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments rejecting the staff member’s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the 爆料网DT judges. 爆料网AT further rejected the staff member’s request that 爆料网AT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the 爆料网AT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...