Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appellant appealed the amount of compensation awarded for loss of chance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion and that each case turned on its facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it would generally defer to the trial court¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not accept the Appellant¡¯s argument that the trial court was required to assess the percentage chances that he would have been selected: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while it had approved that procedure as one method of assessing damages, it respected the opinion of the trial judge as to how to determine...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had consistently held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded damages from the correct date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

The staff member appealed on the ground that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Paskolti¡¯s application for revision of former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review a judgment of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/061 on compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.