Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 requires 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 noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that both parties agreed that a redaction of name would only be justified if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment was affirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it considered that the identification of Mr. Mobanga by the complainant in the photo array was not reliable on the basis that the use of MONUSCO grounds passes in the array may have influenced the complainant. Noting that all of the photos were marked ¡°MONUSCO¡± and so it did not stand out or influence anyone, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the photographs constituted evidence that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal by a full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The majority of the judges upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the minutes upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the 51 appeals into seven groups heard by seven judicial panels, the first group (Kagizi et al. judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/131) being heard by the full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the appellants lacked standing to challenge the non-renewal of their appointments in so far as they were deemed to be a direct challenge against the General Assembly¡¯s decision to abolish the posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while in other aspects, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarded the applications as receivable and dealt with the merits of the case, those findings were not substantially...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that Mr. Zachariah was challenging an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr. Zachariah¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the inherent power to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the inherent power to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Alsado due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Alsado¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate Mr Wright¡¯s permanent appointment was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found Mr Wright¡¯s application receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in light of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...