Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Bofill was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than she had and she would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on her non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dualeh was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than he had and he would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on his non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant¡¯s upgraded performance appraisal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB decision.