Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated the principle that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances.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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT having stepped into the shoes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Medical Director. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci. Recalling that compensation in the absence of actual injury is without legal basis, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law. However, acceding in part to the cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that when the disciplinary procedure does not bear out allegations against a staff member that may have been considered during a preliminary investigation, entitlements that may have been lawfully withheld pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2004/3 must be paid in full, including interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo review.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the settlement...