Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute which provided...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could discern no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was merit to the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deeming the...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

The Appellant appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...