Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 2009 Johnson case and the present case dealt with identical factual circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General contended that, following the issuance of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-240, it was clear that he could no longer require staff members to apply their foreign tax credits to reduce tax liability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had already used her foreign tax credit in 2010 before the Organisation changed its policy and rescinded its decision to require her to apply her foreign tax credits for her 2010 tax...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was unable to find any such evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (by audio conference) as verified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...