罌厭弝ⅰAT | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-116, Iskandar

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, as a consequence of paragraph 11 of the Inter-Organisation Agreement, the 罌厭弝ⅰ, through 罌厭弝ⅰAMID, undertook to extend the protection of its system of administration of justice to the Appellant in respect of administrative decisions taken by 罌厭弝ⅰAMID during the term of the Loan Agreement. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that under this provision, the Appellant could only appeal against the administrative decisions of WFP before ILOAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, without access to the administration of justice system within the 罌厭弝ⅰ, the Appellant would have no right to an effective remedy from the competent tribunal in...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-118, Abu-Hawaila

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT was not persuaded that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in its judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to 罌厭弝ⅰDT 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. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the settlement...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-117, Lutta

11 Mar 2011

The Appellant appealed the amount of compensation awarded for loss of chance. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that there was no set way for the trial court to set damages for loss of chance of promotion and that each case turned on its facts. 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that it would generally defer to the trial court＊s discretion. 罌厭弝ⅰAT did not accept the Appellant＊s argument that the trial court was required to assess the percentage chances that he would have been selected: 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that while it had approved that procedure as one method of assessing damages, it respected the opinion of the trial judge as to how to determine...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-112, Abbasi

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Administration applied 罌厭弝ⅰICEF＊s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi＊s favour. 罌厭弝ⅰAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered 每 or even favoured for reasons of gender 每 in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by 罌厭弝ⅰICEF during the selection process. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the appeal and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-111, Sprauten

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT committed...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-110, Abbassi

11 Mar 2011

The staff member appealed on the ground that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, 罌厭弝ⅰAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by 罌厭弝ⅰDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-107, Chen

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to 罌厭弝ⅰ staff. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that 罌厭弝ⅰDT awarded damages from the correct date. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Administration＊s allegation that 罌厭弝ⅰDT usurped the Secretary-General＊s...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-108, Ajdini et al.

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal of 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as 罌厭弝ⅰAT had consistently held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. 罌厭弝ⅰAT allowed the appeal and set aside the 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-109, Hastings

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-161, Kasyanov

21 Oct 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-罌厭弝ⅰAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by 罌厭弝ⅰAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. 罌厭弝ⅰAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT judgment.