Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, determining that there was no need for further evidence, and then considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minor errors in the promotion process prejudiced no one¡¯s rights, especially in that, while it is much better practice to do so, the Appellant cited no authority requiring the listing of the exact number of positions available in the vacancy announcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also affirmed the findings of fact by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, including that the Appellant well knew the numbers of vacancies, and there was no individual prejudice to him in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request that her challenge of the first recruitment process be placed in abeyance until completion of the second recruitment process was unusual and rightly declined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no right of the Appellant was infringed upon, as she had not been denied an opportunity to compete for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the recommendations did not constitute administrative decisions subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in the decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dualeh was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than he had and he would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on his non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...