Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was distinguishable from Finniss (judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-397) since there was no allegation of bias, discrimination, or any other kind of deteriorated or privileged relationship between the involved candidate and the Deputy CEO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the Deputy CEO should not have acted as a voting member of the assessment panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order to exclude the Deputy CEO¡¯s involvement in the selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives, of which there was none (except unsubstantiated and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT supported the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found...

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-807. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe¡¯s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was egregious that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...