Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant¡¯s claim for financial and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred with respect to the period for which the staff member was entitled to an SPA. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the requirements for an SPA had been met for the period 1 August 2015 to 31 January 2018, but due to the timing of his request in December 2018, he was entitled to payment only starting 21 December 2017. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that even this payment was in error, because the staff member¡¯s claim to the SPA was made several years after the entitlement to the initial payment came into play in August 2015. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT might have repeated some or most of the Respondent¡¯s arguments and language in its judgment would not be sufficient to undermine the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s considerations or determinations.

Regarding the scope of the appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the remedy claimed in the appeal does not aim for the rescission of the reassignment, but the placement into a P-5 or D-1 post commensurate with the Appellant¡¯s skills, training, qualifications, and experience for which she has applied and which was not the subject of her initial application, the...

The application can be decided through a summary judgment as there was no controversy on the facts, and the legal matter at stake was already been decided by this Tribunal in its Judgment Krioutchkov Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/052.

The Applicant decided not to participate in the written assessment, which was a compulsory step in the recruitment process. It follows that his non-selection for the vacant post was exclusively a consequence of his own actions and, as per Loeber 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-836, he stopped himself from contesting the selection outcome.

Although the schedule of the written assessment was probably...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the finding that there was no causal link between the protected activity of Ms. Fosse and the detrimental behaviour of the Executive Secretary was a finding that a reasonable administrator could make. The conclusion that there was no causal link was based on the OIOS¡¯s investigation, its engagement with other staff, the documentary information evidencing the essentially undisputed problematic relationship between Ms. Fosse and the Executive Secretary, the perceived poor performance of Ms. Fosse, and Ms. Fosse¡¯s insistence on working only...

Mr. Moulana appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵATnoted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Abou Salah¡¯s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the US prime rate. The Applicant¡¯s claim for financial and...