Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that Ms. Xing¡¯s candidacy was given a full and fair consideration, in finding that the administrative instruction on gender parity (ST/AI/1999/9) did not apply in this case, and in not granting Ms. Xing¡¯s request to amend her application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has not been shown to have erred in requiring credible evidence of a clear and compelling nature of Ms. Xing¡¯s allegations of ulterior motives, which was absent.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not detect any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

The Dispute Tribunal committed an error in procedure by relying on ex parte evidence in the form of three doctors¡¯ notes, of which the Secretary-General received the translated copies only two days before the issuance of the impugned Judgment, in violation of audi alteram partem. The Dispute Tribunal failed to consider the ¡°checks and balances to ensure transparency¡± instituted in established procedures as outlined in the Guidelines and the ability of the Applicant to raise timely concerns about potential bias after the interview. As there is no obligation to provide the names of the...

The matter remanded to the Joint Appeals Board of ITLOS to be reconsidered and decided by a neutral first instance process

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour¡¯s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in Mr Dabbour¡¯s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing to indicate why Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.