Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad¡¯s appointment was not terminated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s continuing appointment was unlawful as its purported basis (insufficient funds) did not exist. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not necessary for it to deal with the issue of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its finding that the Administration failed to comply with its obligation of retention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the abolition of the post due to financial reasons did not subsist for judicial review. On the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in finding Mr Nugroho...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact when it found that the decision to abolish the post was lawful. However, in not providing reasons for its decision to commute the six-month notice period into compensation, the Organisation failed in its duty to demonstrate that its discretion was not exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. The Administration failed to meet its burden to minimally demonstrate that the Appellant was given full and fair consideration. The Administration acted arbitrarily and thus failed to exercise its discretion lawfully. The termination of the Appellant¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...