Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

In her appeal, the Appellant contended that the Organisation owed her a duty of care as a result of the actions of its representatives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not produce any evidence that the invoked injury was the result of negligence or fraud caused by a specific act or omission of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ or one of its representatives, or of the fact that the Organisation was aware of the fraud prior to the Appellant¡¯s allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages could not be entertained as there was no nexus between the fraud and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ, nor was the Organisation aware of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellant, was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Hastings (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-109), where it held that the trial court is in a much better position than Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in assessing the probabilities of a candidate being selected for a position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant should not be awarded any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid to her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request to award costs against the Secretary-General, noting that there were...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT previously addressed the issues at hand and, therefore, there were no grounds to consider that the Appellant¡¯s rights to due process were violated by a judgment by default or by not considering her arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that there was no administrative decision concerning the Appellant¡¯s return to the G-4 post capable of judicial review under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as that return was the predictable and logical consequence of her non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on its holding in Zhang (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-078) and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly...