Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both applications.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no provision in the Staff Regulations or Rules stating that the Secretary-General¡¯s discretionary authority to issue a written reprimand as a non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2(b) (i) was predicated upon and limited to the existence of an ongoing employment contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to hold otherwise would render baseless those standards of conduct that survive active service. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, from a practical perspective, it would stymie the Secretary-General¡¯s ability and discretionary authority to properly manage investigations and...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the respective management evaluation was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...
