Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement that the clear purpose and intent of Staff Regulation 5.3 was to restrict the entitlement to home leave to those who are serving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ outside of their home country and by implication their country of nationality, was the correct interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in law with regard to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach on the issue of home leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, as a matter of law and fact, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s move to his country of nationality was a good reason for the Secretary-General to reassess his eligibility for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in order for the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the need for translator services at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMI could...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the Appellant was not a staff member of IOM at the time of the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF and IOM of 6 March 2006, the terms of the Agreement were not applicable to him as, by its terms, the Agreement only covered staff members who were current at the time of the Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the different treatment of IOM staff members was created by the General Assembly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that restoration is an exceptional benefit that cannot be extended by analogy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim of inconsistency, unequal treatment, and arbitrariness by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/108 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/109 jointly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/062. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors of...