Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell¡¯s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was well within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no merit in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by awarding compensation for distress without a previous claim for damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Debebe¡¯s claim before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had been limited to material or pecuniary damages related solely to remuneration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for moral damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for moral damages.

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in light of which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judge, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...