Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the text of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was merit to the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko¡¯s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ purposes was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko¡¯s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko¡¯s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding...

On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding his claims, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant¡¯s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly refused to address the Appellant¡¯s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

The Appellant appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General and the cross-appeal of Mr Nartey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it found the decision to deny Mr Nartey¡¯s request to grant him a lien on his post was an abuse of authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Nartey did not satisfy his burden to show the impugned decision was based on a retaliatory motive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law when it concluded that the impugned decision was retaliatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also made factual errors regarding retaliation and these errors resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by considering as mitigating factors the recommendation of Mr Jaffa¡¯s immediate supervisors that his actions warranted a reprimand and the fact that Mr Jaffa continued to perform for two further years (with positive reviews). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching sufficient importance to the fact that Mr Jaffa held a position of trust as a Finance Assistant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had not overlooked relevant mitigating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any procedural errors warranting the reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of any adverse administrative decision that stemmed from the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and that the comments of his Second Reporting Officer (SRO) reflected no more than a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees, and did not of itself constitute an independent, administrative decision capable of being appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s challenge which related to the comments of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and committed an error in procedure, subjecting the parties to disparate treatment, lacked merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate what document or related facts he would have submitted that would have affected the outcome of the case if he had been given more time. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to determine admissibility and weighing of evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact when it failed to draw the necessary inference from...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was filed on time and was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the parties agreed to and identified the facts in their Joint Statement, it was not open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conduct its own evaluation and then to substitute its view for that of the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the misconduct was of a grave and serious nature and in those circumstances, the sanction of separation was reasonable and not disproportionate and/or arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it reversed the Secretary-General¡¯s decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute which provided...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could discern no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT set out the correct legal framework, but thereafter erroneously reviewed the evidence and interfered with the administrative discretion, since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had established the misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in its evaluation of the evidence and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had established the existence of the facts warranting disciplinary sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedure and the subsequent decision were lawful and there was no basis to rescind the termination or to award any...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the separation issue was not receivable because it was res judicata. On the non-selection issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any errors of law or fact in reaching its finding that since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, neither the failure to consider his application prior to the 30-day candidates nor the failure to notify him within 14 days of the selection decision vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his requests for relief were denied, noting that where an irregularity has no...