Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

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...

The Appellant¡¯s appeal primarily challenged the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant¡¯s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it doubted whether the application was receivable, but due to some uncertainties and because the matter was of general interest, it would decide the case on the merits. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that Ms Haq and Ms Kane had a fundamental right to be fully and accurately informed about their pension entitlements at the time of their appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ms Kortes¡¯ cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue was whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration¡¯s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill ¡°some¡± staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

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...