Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the undisputed breach of confidentiality in the selection process provided rational grounds for the cancellation decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant had access to information about his test score and that he was perhaps seeking to influence the decision through the hiring manager, rendered the selection exercise problematic and unsatisfactory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the perception was unavoidably created that the Appellant was inappropriately favoured with access to information about a decision concerning his interests and in respect of which he enjoyed no authority...

Request for oral hearing: Given Mr. Toson¡¯s arguments wherein he wishes to contest evidence before the Dispute Tribunal in a manner that would be essentially a rehearing of the evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing should not be granted and would not assist in expeditiously and fairly resolving the issues in this appeal. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal applied the appropriate standard of review. It reviewed the applicable policy of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA for selection processes (the PPM), reviewed the evidence, and determined that the applicable procedures were followed in the...

Mr. Krioutchkov appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the timing of the written test was justifiable in that holding the test at a set hour worldwide was a rational way of avoiding leaks of the test materials. The inconvenience to the Administration of accommodating different test schedules outweighed the inconvenience of Mr. Krioutchkov being required to adjust his schedule. The scheduling decision was accordingly reasonable. Moreover, having refused to participate in the written examination, Mr. Krioutchkov was estopped from challenging the non-selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour¡¯s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments: it identified the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the correct way to make the comparison to ensure that the minimum increase in net base salary under Staff Rule 3.4(b) is achieved for the staff member is to compare both remunerations shorn of their COL and post adjustment elements and of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez¡¯s assessments under each. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that although not perfect because of the potential variability of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez¡¯s personal assessments under each, it achieves the required comparator using the GS net...

Mr. Okwir appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...