Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by awarding...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...
The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant¡¯s application for mobility allowance.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...
