Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member¡¯s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s application of the priority consideration...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact in considering that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the whole reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was misconstrued and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA vendor. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

The Appellant¡¯s appeal primarily challenged the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT not to hold an oral hearing, purportedly denying him a fair trial and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reason for the decisions to temporarily limit the authority of the Applicant pending a management review was not in contention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the withdrawal of the delegations did not unduly detract from the Appellant¡¯s core functions, though his discretion to interact with various stakeholders was significantly restricted and he was constrained by a firmer level of accountability and closer scrutiny of his performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration was not under an obligation to pursue a recruitment procedure once begun by filling the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested administrative decision not to carry the recruitment process through to appointment, but rather to readvertise, was a valid and lawful exercise of the Administration¡¯s discretion, based on sound reasons inextricably linked to the interest of the service, namely the situation in Burundi, the need for additional skills, and compliance with the relevant legal instruments governing the recruitment procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ruled that his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Whilst the Appellant could and did request further information about the recruitment exercise, such request did not in any way impact the statutory time limit contained in Staff Rule 11. 2(c). In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the additional evidence the Appellant sought to submit on appeal bore no relevance to the case and rejected his request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.