Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the staff member¡¯s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member¡¯s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member had the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s appeal was defective because she did not specify which errors were committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in arriving at its Judgment. However, given that the staff member was not legally represented, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT went on to review the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it held that the staff member did not have any right to be appointed and that the recommendation from the HR Head did not mature into an enforceable right. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no entitlement to receive overtime pay since overtime must be authorized in advance and duly recorded...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or fact in accepting estimates from three different hospitals in Turkey, although one such estimate dated in December 2015 (close to the date of the interventions in Geneva, November 2015) and the other two estimates were submitted much later in October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the December 2015 estimate was a fair estimate of the medical costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that a more favourable exchange rate (1 USD : 3 TRY), which was applicable in 2016, should have been applied to the October 2019 estimates. The Tribunal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.