Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, through Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had accepted the conditions of the RLA, which stated that ¡°the loaned employee shall return to the releasing agency upon completion or termination of his assignment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID and that no offer of continuing employment shall be made to him by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID without consulting the releasing agency¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had had a valid employment contract with WFP, and he did not fulfil the conditions for termination under that same agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not formally initiate the transfer procedure and/or termination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte¡¯s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/142. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that accounting for factors such as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly rejected the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the MEU¡¯s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore initially made no error of law in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Gido¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected Mr Gido¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr...