Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/116. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Noting the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with respect to case management, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his ¡°evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these matters had been...

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence with regards to the nature of the redress granted to Ms Farr. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering that Ms Farr¡¯s name be placed on the roster because the legal consequence of the annulment of the selection procedure was restricted to placing the staff member in the same position she would have been in if the illegality had not occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to afford Ms Farr proper redress, she should be allowed to take a second oral exam in French, with adequate assurances concerning the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea¡¯s appointment was based solely on speculation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/209 (on liability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/062 (on relief). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that, had the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Staff Pension Committee (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Asariotis. Considering first the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal related to claimed errors in procedure on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to deal specifically with certain issues, namely the benefits Ms. Asariotis lost and priority that would have been afforded to her as a female candidate, did not manifestly affect the outcome of the case, in view of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the sanction was not disproportionate and noted that the Secretary-General could have chosen to summarily dismiss Mr Nasrallah or to separate him without compensation and indemnities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although no investigation was necessary as the facts were not contested, the Organisation committed an egregious error in taking almost two years to finalise the disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that this delay worked in Mr Nasrallah¡¯s favour, permitting him to benefit from two years¡¯ further service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...