Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that grounds existed to discharge Mr Leal for misconduct, without needing to address the issue of the alleged circumvention of the recruitment process for the purposes of hiring. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct and disciplinary measure of dismissal fell within the discretion of the Secretary-General and could not be seen as disproportionate to the offences unless it was the result of proven abuse or arbitrary exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the key elements of Mr Leal¡¯s due process were met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning her entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that Ms Akello¡¯s involvement in the private company Blessed Seasons, which was on a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ list of companies providing escort vehicle services, met the standard of business activity and enterprise prohibited by former Staff Regulation 1. 2(m) and that her activities amounted to a conflict of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in ruling otherwise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact and the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal succeeded on that ground. On the issue of whether the very fact that the Internal Affairs Unit investigation, having...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

The staff member appealed seven Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, by continuously filing appeals lacking merit, the staff member had manifestly abused the proceedings, and awarded costs against the staff member for the first time since its inception.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision and did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by not considering the various provisions of Staff Rule 3. 18. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a staff member¡¯s failure to meet the requirements of either Annex IV or Staff Rule 3. 18 precluded the staff member from being eligible for a repatriation grant and, since the Appellant did not meet the requirement of Annex IV, that she relocate after separation from service, there was no need for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider whether she met the conditions for eligibility under Staff Rule 3. 18(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in determining the Appellant was not eligible for a repatriation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any error of law or fact in...