Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to identify any...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that both parties agreed that a redaction of name would only be justified if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment was affirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it considered that the identification of Mr. Mobanga by the complainant in the photo array was not reliable on the basis that the use of MONUSCO grounds passes in the array may have influenced the complainant. Noting that all of the photos were marked ¡°MONUSCO¡± and so it did not stand out or influence anyone, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the photographs constituted evidence that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal by a full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. The majority of the judges upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the record did not support the finding that the Appellant was notified for the purposes of Staff Rule 11.2(c) during her June 2014 meetings (or any previous ones) with the effect of triggering the time limits thereunder for her request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the minutes upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based its finding were unsigned, undated, and not shared with the Appellant at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the meetings of June 2014 did not have the aim of notification of the administrative decision of the non-renewal of her...