Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unnecessary for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the error committed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that parties before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT remained legally valid until such time as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order was vexatious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was persuaded for reasons of equity and good faith by the Appellant¡¯s arguments rather than those put forward by the Secretary-General, although it did not accept the entirety of the Appellant¡¯s arguments on the discontinuation issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to give due consideration to the arguments raised by the Appellant regarding the years 1989 to 1997, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in retroactively applying former Staff Rule 104. 3 set forth in ST/SGB/2003/1 to the entirety of his service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to rely on the statutory provisions in force when he last...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct had been established...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal authority for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to commence the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...