Due process | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-630, Bhatia et al.

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not addressed the Appellants＊ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants＊ request for more time into applications. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants＊ due process rights. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-629, Prasad et al.

24 Mar 2016

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-628, Taneja et al.

3 May 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not addressed the Appellants＊ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants＊ request for more time into applications. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants＊ due process rights. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-889, Sall

26 Oct 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the Appellant＊s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-862, Majut

29 Jun 2018

On appeal by the Secretary-General, 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that a proper consideration of the whole of the evidence could only have led to one conclusion, and that is that the individual assaulted the victim. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not consider the evidence objectively, specifically by giving misplaced importance to minor inconsistencies, coming to unreasonable conclusions on the facts which were not supported by the evidence, and making speculations instead of...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-861, Dahan

29 Jun 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no error in the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-822, Elobaid

22 Mar 2018

The Secretary-General appealed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid＊s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

2018-罌厭弝ⅰAT-817, Kisia

22 Mar 2018

The Secretary-General appealed. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the 罌厭弝ⅰCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT granted the appeal and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

2019-罌厭弝ⅰAT-960, Abdeljalil

25 Oct 2019

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s case was fully and fairly considered by 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT found no error of law in 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT＊s decision. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. 罌厭弝ⅰAT 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. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, 罌厭弝ⅰRWA adhered to the principles of equality...

2019-罌厭弝ⅰAT-956, Ladu

25 Oct 2019

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant＊s claim that the items were ※garbage§, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant＊s claim that 罌厭弝ⅰDT failed to fully assess...