Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute prevents Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT from receiving a case which...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, agreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel¡¯s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reprimand in the offender¡¯s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe¡¯s reputation and career. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Onifade¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-668. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Ibrahim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, agreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that there was nothing illegal or warranting compensation in the investigation process and the investigation was not vitiated by procedural error or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the bottle of wine disappeared immediately after Mr Ibrahim had handled it for the second time in front of the camera and then with his back obstructing the camera. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, apart from the direct link between the manipulation of the bottle of wine by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was lawfully terminated in accordance with the amended terms of her appointment and that her appeal had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to meet the burden of proof of the alleged improper motivation for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFCCC advertised nine fixed-term positions at the G-5 level, but that the Appellant did not apply for any of them, her aim being to secure a P-2 level position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Administration had no duty to seek a suitable position for the Applicant beyond the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager¡¯s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant¡¯s right...

ArÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the inference drawn by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided to strike out the Appellant¡¯s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee¡¯s decision which was in full accord with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...