Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure¡¯s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration¡¯s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law that would warrant reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the non-selection of the Appellant was not vitiated by any improper motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even if the alleged flaws were to be considered irregularities, they would not be important enough to render the proceedings null or to reflect a violation of rights and actual harm or discrimination suffered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no compensation should be awarded to the Appellant, as no illegality or breach of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Skourikhine¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

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 considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both the two appeals by the Secretary-General and two cross-appeals by Mr Charles in judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-416. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Section 9 of ST/AI/2010/3 was clear in giving the head of department/office the discretion to make a selection decision from candidates included in the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that Section 9. 4 required the head of department/office to first review all non-rostered candidates before selecting a rostered candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues of...

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was merit to the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in...