Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

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...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding his claims, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Administrative Instruction CF/AI/2011-001 retroactively to review the non-renewal decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in concluding that it was the duty of the Administration to take measures to remedy failings in performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the non-renewal decision was vitiated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s failure to take remedial measures to improve Mr Assale¡¯s performance was without legal basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously concluded that both the Chad Country...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the definition of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law when it found Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not accord any deference to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Das¡¯s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and had not initiated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and not to redact the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute is alternative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and noted that the letters of appointment issued to the Appellant for the period of 1 July 2009 through 30 June 2012 did not refer to either the Memorandum, that described the planned phasing-out of the PTA, or the PTA itself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the PTA is neither a benefit or entitlement under the Staff Regulations and Rules, which ¡°embody the conditions of service and the basic rights and duties and obligations of United Nations staff members,¡± nor an ¡°administrative issuance in application of, and consistent with, the said Regulations and Rules. ¡±...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Standing Committee did not err in holding the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in refusing to receive the application, the Standing Committee also implicitly refused to find ¡°good cause¡± to waive the sixty days¡¯ time limit for review set forth in Section K of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Administrative Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in this implicit determination and held that a waiver of five years for review by the Standing Committee would be unreasonable, especially in light of the time limits in the Transfer Agreement between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and CTBTO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

The first issue Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered was whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that ¡°[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

The Appellant filed a notice of withdrawal pursuant to the terms and conditions of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT issued Order No. 188 (2014) noting the withdrawal and ordering the Registrar to close the case.