Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisifed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that joint representation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT shifted the burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment which would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld such conclusions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were errors by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...