Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make such findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously awarded the Appellant moral damages because she did not produce any corroborating evidence to support the contention that harm had occurred. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award for moral damages would stand since the Secretary-General had not appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no corroborating evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages to ¡°restore her professional, physical and emotional suffering¡± and for ¡°irregularities and ignorance. ¡± The appeal could not succeed on those claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that a referral for accountability is...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault...