Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in affirming the JAB¡¯s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/034 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Perelli was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for execution.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the record that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a rehearing de...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application regarding the implied decision conveyed in a conversation with his colleague was, indeed, not receivable ratione materiae. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a later letter of response from the Administration effectively re-set the clock for the Appellant to file his request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the express decision in the letter, containing the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s complaint and the reasons, therefore, was not a mere confirmation of the previous implied administrative decision, but a new, appealable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that Ms. Xing¡¯s candidacy was given a full and fair consideration, in finding that the administrative instruction on gender parity (ST/AI/1999/9) did not apply in this case, and in not granting Ms. Xing¡¯s request to amend her application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has not been shown to have erred in requiring credible evidence of a clear and compelling nature of Ms. Xing¡¯s allegations of ulterior motives, which was absent.

The suspension of action was granted and the adverse report ordered to be removed from the applicant¡¯s official status file pending the outcome of the substantive proceeding.