Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the inherent power to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the inherent power to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by awarding...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously awarded the Appellant moral damages because she did not produce any corroborating evidence to support the contention that harm had occurred. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award for moral damages would stand since the Secretary-General had not appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no corroborating evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages to ¡°restore her professional, physical and emotional suffering¡± and for ¡°irregularities and ignorance. ¡± The appeal could not succeed on those claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that a referral for accountability is...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence was presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...