Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Bofill was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than she had and she would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on her non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the recommendations did not constitute administrative decisions subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated any error in the decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/075 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/076. On the issue of being barred from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV premises, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has jurisdiction over applications filed by a staff member, former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. However, given that the Appellant was not a staff member at the time he was barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not complain that the decision was not in compliance with his terms of appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as a holder of an SSA contract, the Appellant was no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant¡¯s upgraded performance appraisal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dualeh was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than he had and he would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on his non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...