Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law by...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT would have impacted the decision of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in an Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ABD¡¯s appeal was filed within 60 days of the Order¡¯s issuance, but more than 30 days after that event. Given that under Article 7(1)(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, a party has 30 days to appeal an order, ABD was out of time to appeal against the impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Appeals Tribunal concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the Administration had established that AAR had unlawfully disclosed confidential information and had unlawfully failed to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

The Appeals Tribunal was also satisfied that the administrative measure imposed on AAR was proportionate to his misconduct, and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error in awarding moral damages for the harm AAR incurred due to the undue delay in completing the disciplinary process.

The Appeals Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeals.

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...