Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the Appellant¡¯s claims of discriminatory and arbitrary practices, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of law or procedure of any factual error such as to result in a manifestly unreasonable decision and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings demonstrated that it took cognisance of all relevant information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in holding that it was for the High Commissioner to determine the relative importance of the criteria to use for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact when it determined that the Appellant was afforded proper consideration and in finding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in ¡°double-counting¡± by using the same element of Mr Andersson¡¯s high chance of promotion to justify both its award of CHF 10,000 in lieu of rescission, as well as its award of CHF 4,000 for moral damages. The claim for moral damages was related to the reparation of an injury, that could not be regarded as covered by the payment of CHF 10,000 awarded as an alternative to rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Mr Andersson only fleetingly referred to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of CHF 5,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the power to award costs for manifest abuse of proceedings before JAB, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Secretary-General¡¯s delay in responding to the JAB report constituted a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the delay in question was not inordinate and, in any event, a delay in and of itself, did not constitute a manifest abuse of proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could lawfully award costs against the Secretary-General, it was necessary to determine on the evidence that the delay constituted a wrong or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in its determination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as of 30 June 2009, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by Ms Tsoneva and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the prescribed procedure, leading to the discontinuation of Ms Tsoneva¡¯s position, noting that there was no requirement that the staff member¡¯s meeting with the manager must take place after the staff member had received a written notification or that the manager must consult a concerned staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Director complied with the prescribed procedure by discussing the matter with Ms Tsoneva, informing her in writing of his intention to request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

On the alleged procedural error of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was well within the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed this ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, affirming the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal.

The Appellant requested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...