Search
2011-爆料网AT-145, Eid
爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT order denying revision. 爆料网AT held that a change in law is not a “fact” contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by 爆料网AT is an issue of law, not of fact.
2011-爆料网AT-146, Borg-Olivier
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant’s receipt of the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment.
2011-爆料网AT-147, Osman
爆料网AT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, 爆料网DT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
2011-爆料网AT-148, Shkurtaj
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. 爆料网AT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. 爆料网AT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. 爆料网AT held that the amount of fourteen months’ net...
2011-爆料网AT-140, Wang
爆料网AT was satisfied that the 爆料网DT’s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the 爆料网 outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in law with regard to the 爆料网DT’s approach on the issue of home leave. 爆料网AT held, as a matter of law and fact, that 爆料网DT properly concluded that the Appellant’s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...
2011-爆料网AT-141, Frohler
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s approach in considering the Appellant’s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that it was not the function of 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. 爆料网AT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in 爆料网DT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...
2011-爆料网AT-142, El Khatib
爆料网AT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant’s retirement. 爆料网AT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. 爆料网AT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months’ net base salary as compensation.
2011-爆料网AT-143, Appellant
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant’s formal complaint. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of 爆料网DT with regard to the Appellant’s request for an investigation. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the award by 爆料网DT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant’s separation from service was not the subject of...
2011-爆料网AT-144, Thiam
爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
2011-爆料网AT-133, Rosca
爆料网AT considered judgment Nos. 爆料网DT/2009/052 and 爆料网DT/2009/062. 爆料网AT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that 爆料网DT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. 爆料网AT held that the application before 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgments.
2011-爆料网AT-134, Larkin
爆料网AT considered appeals against 爆料网DT judgment Nos. 爆料网DT/2010/108 and 爆料网DT/2010/109 jointly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the 爆料网DT’s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. 爆料网AT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...
2011-爆料网AT-136, Ardisson
爆料网AT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the 爆料网JSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. 爆料网AT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. 爆料网AT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the 爆料网JSPB was...
2011-爆料网AT-137, Jemiai
爆料网AT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. 爆料网AT noted that, as 爆料网DT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. 爆料网AT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...
2011-爆料网AT-138, Abdalla
爆料网AT held that, in order for the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and 爆料网AT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of 爆料网DT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. 爆料网AT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. 爆料网AT held that the need for translator services at 爆料网AMI could...
2011-爆料网AT-139, Basenko
爆料网AT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. 爆料网AT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. 爆料网AT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
2011-爆料网AT-131, Cohen
爆料网AT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the 爆料网DT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years’ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where 爆料网DT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...
2011-爆料网AT-132, Frechon
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to 爆料网DT having stepped into the shoes of the 爆料网 Medical Director. 爆料网AT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of 爆料网DT that Ms Frechon’s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. 爆料网AT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in rescinding the decision to...
2011-爆料网AT-130, Koda
爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that OIOS operates under the “authority” of the Secretary-General but has “operational independence”. 爆料网AT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General’s administrative decisions. 爆料网AT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members’ terms or contract of employment, OIOS’ reports may be...
2011-爆料网AT-129, Beaudry
爆料网AT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-129. 爆料网AT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the 爆料网AT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. 爆料网AT dismissed the application.
2011-爆料网AT-127, Luvai
爆料网AT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-014 by Mr Luvai. 爆料网AT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before 爆料网DT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then 爆料网DT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. 爆料网AT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. 爆料网AT denied the application.