Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Applicant argues that his non-selection for the D2 post constitutes an act of retaliation for having denounced misconduct on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD Officials. Since the two applications relate to the situation faced by the Applicant subsequent to the admitted retaliation, the Judge decided that it was necessary to join the two applications and to render one single Judgment. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not proven and the file did not allow concluding that the decision not to select him to the D2 post was based on extraneous factors or illegal. It further found that the SG had...

The 11 percent increase in the US Embassy salaries from June 2008 were properly factored into the calculations, but the 2010 increase fell outside the data range for the collection and consideration of data for the 2010 review. There was no evidence of ill motivation or breaches of the relevant rules and guidelines by the Administration.; The Administration did not breach any of the provisions of the Manual when it reached the decision concerning family expenditure surveys. The Office of Human Resources Management used the correct criteria for deciding if a spousal allowance should be created...

Administrative decision: The Tribunal held that while the Application appeared to be challenging a decision of the Secretary-General, the fundamental decision being contested was actually the ICSC decision to reclassify the Addis Ababa duty station. Noting that the ICSC is an independent entity, the Tribunal held that: (i) its decision cannot be imputed to the Secretary-General; (ii) it cannot extend its jurisdiction to include decisions made by the ICSC; and(iii) that the Secretary-General has not been vested with any discretionary authority with respect to the implementation of ICSC...

Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if heintends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming Mr Massah¡¯s separation from service for serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Goodwin and the Secretary-General limited to the issue of compensation. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to award pecuniary damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held (with Judge Faherty dissenting) that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT such as would entitle Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to interfere with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Appellant had been properly compensated for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held t that the substantive and procedural breaches identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of themselves merited an award of moral damages because of the harm caused to Mr Goodwin, namely his having...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton¡¯s likely prospects of success. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Mr Appleton¡¯s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that: the Sidells were negligent in not reporting their marriage before their separation from service; Mr Sidell notified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in October 2003 of his marriage to Mrs Sidell and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF requested him to provide his original marriage certificate, which he did; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF did not follow up with Mr Sidell about the matter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, by remaining silent, created a reasonable expectation on the part of the Sidells that Mr Sidell¡¯s pension record was corrected and that his marriage to Mr Sidell was recognised by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in the circumstances, it was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-185. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its Case Management Order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for interpretation.

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ms Akello¡¯s involvement in the private company Blessed Seasons, which was on a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ list of companies providing escort vehicle services, met the standard of business activity and enterprise prohibited by former Staff Regulation 1. 2(m) and that her activities amounted to a conflict of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ruling otherwise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact and the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal succeeded on that ground. On the issue of whether the very fact that the Internal Affairs Unit investigation, having...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that grounds existed to discharge Mr Leal for misconduct, without needing to address the issue of the alleged circumvention of the recruitment process for the purposes of hiring. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct and disciplinary measure of dismissal fell within the discretion of the Secretary-General and could not be seen as disproportionate to the offences unless it was the result of proven abuse or arbitrary exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal¡¯s due process were met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the approach of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not merit the remedy...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by Ms Tsoneva and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the prescribed procedure, leading to the discontinuation of Ms Tsoneva¡¯s position, noting that there was no requirement that the staff member¡¯s meeting with the manager must take place after the staff member had received a written notification or that the manager must consult a concerned staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Director complied with the prescribed procedure by discussing the matter with Ms Tsoneva, informing her in writing of his intention to request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal which held that, unless the Administration had made an express promise that gave a staff member an expectance of extension, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending an appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment was not unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had suffered no material harm from the series of renewals for short...