Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Administration had failed to provide a performance-related justification for its decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s appointment had to be upheld despite the fact that his e-PAS suffered from procedural irregularities as it did not consider that the flaws rendered the appraisal unlawful or unreasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the decision not to renew the appointment was justified because the Secretary-General proved that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s application for interim measures by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and certain conduct by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its Registrar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only proper course for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

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 considered a request for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a successful...

After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT directed the Registrar to close the case.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

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...

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...

On the issue of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

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...