Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

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...

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA adhered to the principles of equality...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant¡¯s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-757) as it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the Appellant¡¯s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s request for documents relating to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses as to whether the Administration properly calculated ¡°reasonable and customary¡± expenses was a central issue in contention and was addressed extensively by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo...

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...