Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years¡¯ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/061 on compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on a question of fact by finding that the three-year ban on promotion ¡°influenced¡± the Applicant¡¯s decision to resign. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, three months after the Applicant¡¯s resignation, the Administration revoked the third part of the sanction, the three-year ban on promotion, acting in line with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence concerning the illegality of that measure because it was not provided for in the former Staff Rules applicable at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the modification of the imposed measures did not entail a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA official service file. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...