Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was still pending. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the relationship between a pension fund and its members and beneficiaries is determined principally by the Regulations of the Fund and that there is no other explicit contractual basis obliging the Fund to assume duties beyond those expressly provided for in the Regulations and Administrative Rules. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the importance of contracts being executed in good faith. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Fund breached its duty of good faith because the correspondence between the Appellant and the Fund indicated that she needed assistance and further...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid¡¯s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.