Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant¡¯s candidature full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to decide on remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2013/035 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for execution.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT when it determined these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/178 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...