Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey¡¯s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the first time the Appellant¡¯s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order denying the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

The Applicant filed a motion for interim measures requesting that the Tribunal order the Ethics Office to deliver recommendations on his case with respect to whistle-blowing retaliation; and to find a prima-facie violation of the Applicant¡¯s due-process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. The Tribunal rejected the motion to order the Ethics Office to deliver its recommendations and decided that the alleged violation of the Applicant¡¯s due process rights concerning the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract would be addressed during the review of the...

The various letters of appointment that the applicant had received in the past contained a provision of non-expectancy of renewal. The applicant¡¯s main contention was that the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment was an act of retaliation because he reported some allegations of financial fraud. The respondent¡¯s primary submission is that the non-renewal of the applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was based on unsatisfactory performance as evidenced in some PAS reports, which had later been upheld by a rebuttal panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant had standing in both cases and that the appeals were not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Organisation did not violate the applicant¡¯s rights when it decided that the provisions of ST/SGB/2005/21 were not directly applicable to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant¡¯s complaint of retaliation was adequately and objectively examined by the investigation panel and by the Director Ethics Office, who agreed that no retaliation had taken place. Thus, the applicant received appropriate recourse. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the applicant¡¯s rights were violated when the...