Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Exceptional circumstances: Circumstances beyond the control of the applicant that prevented him/her from submitting an appeal in time.

Inexplicably, the JAB in its report sua sponte addressed, as a formal issue before it, the handling of a privileged and confidential letter (¡°Confidential Letter¡±) that the Applicant¡¯s Counsel had sent to the Under-Secretary-General for OIOS (¡°USG¡±) regarding the pending JAB litigation. The JAB refused the Applicant¡¯s non-selection claim, but found that the Respondent owed the Applicant an apology for forwarding the Confidential Letter to some staff members. The Respondent subsequently affirmed the non-selection decision, but rejected the issuance of an apology regarding the distribution of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-029bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

The Secretary-General¡¯s decision to allow the applicants to resubmit their cases to the CAC within 90 days was reasonable and fair. The CAC is the legitimate and appropriate body to hear the applicants¡¯ request for a review of a reclassification decision. In view of the JAB¡¯s report, the lack of information provided during the period in question and the respondent¡¯s silence in explaining the delays in the period from 2000-04, the Tribunal finds that compensation for the excessive delay in responding to the original request for reclassification is warranted, as is compensation for the breach of...

In the present judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, in light of the circumstances of this case, the three months¡¯ net base salary paid to the Applicant for the lack of due process on the recommendation of the JAB report was insufficient. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the procedural unfairness to be so grave that it warranted additional compensation in the amount of USD15,000 for the breach of the Applicant¡¯s procedural rights. With respect to compensation for actual economic loss, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Respondent shall compensate the Applicant for the actual economic loss incurred by her and that the actual economic loss...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Procurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT award of compensation for loss of earnings for seven months from the date of the staff member¡¯s separation from service to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment (as an alternative to the order for reinstatement of the staff member) plus an additional amount of two years¡¯ net base salary. The Secretary-General maintained that, while the total of these amounts exceeded the compensation limit of two years¡¯ net base salary, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not particularize any reasons to justify an increased award under Article 10.5(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Article 10.5(b) does not require a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment awarding compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-096). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from awarding any compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s intervention. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036)). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052), which was disproved by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT adequately applied the appropriate principles set out in the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1391 (2008) in considering whether or not a case of serious misconduct had been established and if so, whether the sanction of summary dismissal was appropriate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Appellant accepted lavish hospitality was a clear violation of the Procurement Division¡¯s Guidelines on Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality by the Procurement Division Staff. Although the misconduct was based on a single incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that it would have been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any alleged error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in considering the merits was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...