Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned judgment followed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no statutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in excluding documents from the OSF and by ordering compensation for alleged damages not related to any established illegality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the irregularities and delays in the appraisal procedure were so serious that they rendered the ¡­ evaluations meaningless, it did not mean that they should not be kept in the OSF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that they, together with the corrective substitute reports or decisions, should all be kept in order to explain the whole process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained in force.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct had been established...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Applicant¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-209. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was technically improper for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to analyse the merits of the case after declaring the application time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the appeal had been receivable ratione temporis, the Appellant¡¯s claim could not succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not the task of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT)...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence with regards to the nature of the redress granted to Ms Farr. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering that Ms Farr¡¯s name be placed on the roster because the legal consequence of the annulment of the selection procedure was restricted to placing the staff member in the same position she would have been in if the illegality had not occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to afford Ms Farr proper redress, she should be allowed to take a second oral exam in French, with adequate assurances concerning the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-171. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was time-barred...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly declined to accept...