Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning her entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the ¡°cheating¡± in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi¡¯s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the weight of the evidence, in that case, justified the decision taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, while acknowledging the importance of confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, that due process did not always require that a staff member defending himself against disciplinary action for summary dismissal had the right to confront and cross-examine his/her accusers. Under certain circumstances, denial of this right did not necessarily fatally flaw the entire process, so long as it was established to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s satisfaction that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by awarding compensation for distress without a previous claim for damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Debebe¡¯s claim before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had been limited to material or pecuniary damages related solely to remuneration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for moral damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for moral damages.

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in light of which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judge, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

On the issue of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when the Appellant contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAdT his separation from the Organisation, he should have also submitted the request for payment of a termination indemnity, to be able to collect it if he did not succeed in the first part of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Management Evaluation Unit to consider the Appellant¡¯s request not receivable as time-barred was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even though the Appellant revisited the issue of his separation on several occasions under the old system, he might have been misguided into believing that he could bring the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA official service file. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that ¡°consideration¡± of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the written test had taken...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with the Secretary-General, agreed that there were no grounds to award compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no administrative decision being contested in this case, as both parties accepted the decision to promote Ms Kamal and she had not identified any illegality that could lead to an award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the delay in completing the selection process could not be considered a valid ground for compensation, since the circumstances of the case did not show any negligence or violation of specific...