Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ¡°generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute prevents Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT from receiving a case which...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, agreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel¡¯s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reprimand in the offender¡¯s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe¡¯s reputation and career. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Onifade¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-668. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Ibrahim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, agreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that there was nothing illegal or warranting compensation in the investigation process and the investigation was not vitiated by procedural error or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the bottle of wine disappeared immediately after Mr Ibrahim had handled it for the second time in front of the camera and then with his back obstructing the camera. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, apart from the direct link between the manipulation of the bottle of wine by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawfully terminated in accordance with the amended terms of her appointment and that her appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to meet the burden of proof of the alleged improper motivation for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCCC advertised nine fixed-term positions at the G-5 level, but that the Appellant did not apply for any of them, her aim being to secure a P-2 level position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had no duty to seek a suitable position for the Applicant beyond the...