Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months¡¯ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Executive Director¡¯s actions disregarded Mr Verschur¡¯s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-043 on the issue of to which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assignment of venue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted there was a pattern of withholding annual performance reports and salary increments, and that those delays were coupled with the denial of a post for which the Appellant was short-listed but was not filled prior to the Appellant¡¯s retirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the Appellant was also denied his post, which was abolished due to restructuring. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not treated conscientiously and fairly and deserved compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part and ordered that the Appellant be paid three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/146 on compensation by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that once a judgment on the merits has been vacated and no liability on the part of the Administration has been established, a judgment on compensation cannot stand if it would be contrary to the final decision on the merits of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the judgment on compensation was not necessary if the legal basis for the award of compensation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT no longer existed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal (as unnecessary) and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...