Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...

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...

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 appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence was presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA in tranche 2 list. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had...