Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law and fact when it concluded that the Administration, having issued the offer of appointment on the basis of a factual error to an ineligible candidate who was legally barred from being recruited, had a duty to withdraw the offer, as soon as the mistake was discovered; and that the Administration was legally precluded from issuing a letter of appointment to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, on the basis that it had concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law and fact, it was unnecessary to examine the other grounds of appeal advanced by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT supported the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision could have had an indirect impact on the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment or contract, a direct effect is needed in order to allow a staff member to contest an adverse administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA granted the change of modality of contract to the other individual did not have any bearing on the outcome of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision, because the application was dismissed on receivability grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in any of its factual findings resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Noting that the position in question remained vacant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to leave the position vacant was an exercise of the discretionary authority of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that there was no procedural irregularity or error of law within the exercise of that discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the required burden to be heard on appeal, namely, he failed to identify any of the prescribed grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from raising new arguments on appeal with respect to priority consideration and facts on enrolment which were not argued before...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision whilst the decision not to short-list the Appellant is examined as a part of the final non-selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective as the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s request for documents relating to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses as to whether the Administration properly calculated ¡°reasonable and customary¡± expenses was a central issue in contention and was addressed extensively by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the staff member¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant in determining whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. On the basis that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to enquire as to what options were available to the staff member on Inspira at the time of application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that Inspira did not reflect the variety of the educational system of all the Member States equally and that the staff member¡¯s candidature had not been afforded full and fair...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it doubted whether the application was receivable, but due to some uncertainties and because the matter was of general interest, it would decide the case on the merits. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that Ms Haq and Ms Kane had a fundamental right to be fully and accurately informed about their pension entitlements at the time of their appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...