Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisifed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that joint representation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT shifted the burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment which would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld such conclusions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were errors by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...

The only issue on appeal is whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment¡¯s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...