The Administration paid the compensation ordered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.
In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, nor was the Organisation aware of the...
The Appellant contested the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal¡¯s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the Administration¡¯s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-201. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute from a rule based on...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly declined to accept...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was well within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no merit in...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...
