Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressly held in Mmata (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-092) that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limited the total of all compensation to the equivalent of two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless higher compensation was warranted and reasons were given to explain what makes the case exceptional. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was exceptional, including a series of orders for suspension of action, findings of fact pointing to evidence of abuse of authority, retaliatory threats, and a hostile and offensive environment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Wu and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, despite it being a default judgment and the Secretary-General not having been allowed to participate in the proceedings or to file a reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae on the basis that he had not made a timely request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims in the application and those claims were not properly before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that neither Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor Article 2(7)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute conferred any jurisdiction to hear an application for revision of a judgment of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to hear the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion, it found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in reaching its conclusion, relied on the wrong reasons and failed to follow the binding jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that there was no breach of Mr Powell¡¯s due process rights at the preliminary investigation stage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT manifestly erred in fact and in law by finding that the investigations conducted by the Board of Inquiry (BOI) and the Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) Team were final investigations and by then attaching due process rights that were pertinent only after the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings in paragraphs 86 and 106 of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was well within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no merit in...