Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to be non-receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned judgment followed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact or law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found no basis for disagreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The first issue Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered was whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that ¡°[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management¡¯s (OHRM) advocacy and information...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was evident that the Appellant knew of the process of management evaluation at the time of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly exercised its discretion to award costs against the Appellant for abuse of the judicial process, as her failure to apply for management evaluation was deliberate and thus her application was frivolous and vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.