Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the definition of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2013/035 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to decide on remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...