Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Administration had approved such leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that that the Appellant¡¯s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors in the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant¡¯s application was irreceivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant was notified of the decision not to shortlist him by e-mail of 14 November 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegations regarding the abolishment of his post had no legal relevance for the appeal, which dealt only with issues of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Modey-Ebi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issues in the appeal were entirely factual, most of which were resolved on the evidentiary record which in most respects established a pattern of misconduct justifying dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while some of the proven allegations against Ms. Modey-Ebi were less serious than others, cumulatively they revealed a pattern of unethical conduct indicating that Ms. Modey-Ebi was not suited for the senior position she held. Her behaviour revealed a lack of propriety and integrity and her behaviour was inconsistent with her duties under...

Noting that the Appellant passed away during the course of the litigation and before the hearing of the appeal before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim, namely her challenge to the Administration¡¯s refusal to move her back to her previous position, did not pass to her legal successor(s) in interest, no action is allowed to be commenced by her personal representative or successor in interest and that, under the specific circumstances of the case and due to the nature of the dispute, the issue in dispute was moot. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue in dispute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...