Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all arguments made on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made both factual and legal errors when it concluded that 15 March 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision within the meaning of Staff Rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that 18 April 2013 was the date on which the Appellant received notification of the administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, which is when the 60-day period began to run under Staff rule 11.2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant made her request for management evaluation within the 60 days of 18 April 2013, thus...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the findings by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while only final judgments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeding its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.