Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the decision not to investigate Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSU election matters was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Goodwin¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by awarding excessive compensation to Mr Goodwin. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT relied on Larkin (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-134) on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion to determine the amount of damages. Noting the long period before Mr Goodwin before returning to full service and that the amount of compensation awarded was based on the JAB¡¯s recommendation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that compensation in the amount of two years¡¯ net base salary was reasonable. In considering whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Skourikhine¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no requirement in Section 9. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3 for the head of department to first review all non-rostered candidates, and it had even been amended to specifically remove such a requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidates was contrary to ST/AI/2010/3, as the decision to do so was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, and no abuse of that discretion has been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which challenged the remedies afforded Mr Eissa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not explaining which irregularities were substantive and which were procedural, as either type of irregularity may support an award of moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the award was duplicative of the award of alternative compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an award under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute is alternative...

The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...

The Appellant requested that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Wang¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT supported the Administration¡¯s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals of both Mr Rahman and the Secretary-General. With respect to Mr Rahman¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his non-selection for the D-2 post was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT very carefully examined the circumstances of Mr Rahman¡¯s interview for the D-2 post and that Mr Rahman did not meet the burden of proof that he had been the victim of retaliatory acts during the selection procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Rahman was therefore not entitled to compensation for damages resulting from his non-selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the decision to reassign Mr Rahman to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to be non-receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of judgment on Receivability No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/061 and of judgment on the Merits No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/101. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the judgment on Receivability was timely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that Mr Ngokeng¡¯s satisfactory appraisal constituted an appealable administrative decision, as there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision stemming from Mr Ngokeng¡¯s performance appraisal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically noted that the First Reporting Officer¡¯s comment on Mr Ngokeng¡¯s output did not detract from the overall satisfactory...