Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that accounting for factors such as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make such findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly rejected the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also noted that the review of the Appellant¡¯s performance assessments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was appealed by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed the scope of judicial review by reviewing the facts and concluding that there was sufficient evidence of inebriation but concluding there was a lower level of alcohol consumed based on the breathalyzer result. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the imposition of the sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity was disproportionate to the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the...