Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had consistently held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

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 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 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 appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

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...