After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT directed the Registrar to close the case.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to identify any...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...
