Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-171. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was time-barred...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-173. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/106 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/192. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding the abolition of her post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

On the issue of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...