Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found no basis for disagreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was evident that the Appellant knew of the process of management evaluation at the time of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly exercised its discretion to award costs against the Appellant for abuse of the judicial process, as her failure to apply for management evaluation was deliberate and thus her application was frivolous and vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The first issue Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered was whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that ¡°[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management¡¯s (OHRM) advocacy and information...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in fact or law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned judgment followed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 109 and 110. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no statutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in deciding that the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s contract was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was aware that a high school diploma was an essential qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his contract was conditional upon him producing proof of this qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member was also aware that the consequence of failing to satisfy this requirement was the non-renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the decision not to renew was neither...