Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a successful...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to identify any...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal by a full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The majority of the judges upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the minutes upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...