Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant¡¯s application for mobility allowance.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that accounting for factors such as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...