Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-096). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from awarding any compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment awarding compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an expression of interest by a staff member in the renewal of his or her appointment does not create a right of renewal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the document that Ms Beaudry signed acknowledging her performance rating and the recommendation of her supervisor for no further extension of her appointment was decisive documentary evidence in the case; she knew that the section of the form, providing details of the justification for the recommendation for non-extension, was not completed and nonetheless acknowledged the recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General on the matter of the interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the power to award interest but erred in ordering the payment of interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part, set aside the award of interest from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and awarded interest at the US Prime Rate applicable at the date that the entitlements became due. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that if the judgment was not executed within 60 days, five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate from the date of expiry of the 60-day period to the date of payment of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Procurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a (second) appeal by the Appellant. Taking into account that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had been presented with any submission on the merits of the case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered the Appellant to file a concise statement identifying the precise nature of his claim within 15 days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation for loss of earnings for seven months from the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment (as an alternative to the order for reinstatement of the staff member) plus an additional amount of two years¡¯ net base salary. The Secretary-General maintained that, while the total of these amounts exceeded the compensation limit of two years¡¯ net base salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not particularize any reasons to justify an increased award under Article 10.5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Article 10.5(b) does not require a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.