Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo review.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA adhered to the principles of equality...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in declining the Appellant¡¯s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any opportunity of the Appellant¡¯s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...
A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.
The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the sanction of...
