Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as a consequence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Income Tax Unit¡¯s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife¡¯s income tax liability in future years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s claim for a refund was not moot, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the 60 days¡¯ deadline for the staff member to request management evaluation started from 18 March 2011, the date of the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was, therefore, receivable pursuant to Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, that the repeated renewal of appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave Mr. Igbinedion a legitimate expectation of renewal, was per incuriam and contravened clear and consistent jurisprudence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained in force.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...