Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Organisation correctly excluded the Appellant from the recruitment process for not meeting the minimum education requirement, as he had not entered his educational credential accurately. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had had access to the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual and World Higher Education Database, which was embedded into Inspira. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to implement the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment to carry out additional fact-finding on the issue of whether Inspira reflected the variety of the educational systems of all Member States equally in 2016...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-914 from Mr Oglesby. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the party applying for revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it was within the combined powers of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective or that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made several findings on the appeal. First, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s appointment. The staff member¡¯s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a ¡°dry cut.¡± A ¡°dry cut¡± happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not detect any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.