Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence supports the Hiring Manager¡¯s evaluation of the selected candidate¡¯s candidacy. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that it was within the Respondent¡¯s discretion to select the successful candidate. Moreover, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant has shown that he had a significant chance of selection over the selected candidate, absent any of the procedural irregularities that he alleges.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the re...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s intervention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-096). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from awarding any compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a (second) appeal by the Appellant. Taking into account that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had been presented with any submission on the merits of the case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Appellant to file a concise statement identifying the precise nature of his claim within 15 days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on merits only became final when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the judgment on compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.