Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deeming the...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey¡¯s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by considering as mitigating factors the recommendation of Mr Jaffa¡¯s immediate supervisors that his actions warranted a reprimand and the fact that Mr Jaffa continued to perform for two further years (with positive reviews). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching sufficient importance to the fact that Mr Jaffa held a position of trust as a Finance Assistant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had not overlooked relevant mitigating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it...

The Appellant appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...