Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only proper course for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/111 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-964) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/114 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2016-969). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cases.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

On the issue of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a successful...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT directed the Registrar to close the case.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...