Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an analysis of the e-mail and other correspondence between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and the Appellant indicated that she could not have been led to believe that her home leave request for January 2020 would be granted. She had been advised that a staff member was entitled to home leave only if the staff member¡¯s contract was anticipated to continue for more than six months after the return from home leave, yet Appellant¡¯s continuing engagement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP was unknown, and her current contract end date was June 30, 2020. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP complied with its obligations to consider and decide the...

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years¡¯ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months¡¯ net...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Caucci¡¯s situation differed from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in Tran Nguyen (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/002) and therefore it was erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply such jurisprudence to find that Ms. Caucci had a general service lien with MINUSMA during and after her service with DPO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the rights of staff members on secondment under the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowance, which was at issue in Tran Nguyen...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...