Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deeming the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

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 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 considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to decide on remedy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/007. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala¡¯s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in deeming Ms Fiala¡¯s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for execution.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT when it determined these...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the importance of its jurisprudence on the receivability of appeals against interlocutory orders in that the excess of jurisdiction or competence must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that such a threshold had been met by the Secretary-General, given the circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that adjudication of the matters complained of by the Secretary-General, notwithstanding that they touched upon the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was more proper for consideration once a final judgment has been rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that, pursuant to the Instruction Manual, a candidate for an advertised post was entitled to be apprised of the composition of the interview panel prior to the interview. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that by pointing out that she had been previously interviewed for the post and that there were ongoing proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT regarding her challenge to a prior selection exercise, the staff member had put the Administration on notice of the importance she attached to the panel¡¯s composition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically as to whether Mr Gehr was prejudiced or discommoded by the fact that his rebuttal was conducted by the rebuttal panel established in 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find that Mr Gehr¡¯s obligation to engage with a panel established pursuant to ST/AI/2010/5 was, in and of itself, sufficient to merit an award of compensation, in the absence of specific harm or prejudice arising therefrom. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the breach was not of sufficient seriousness to merit a compensatory award. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, and to separate her from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

The Secretary-General appealed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT only considered the receivability of this appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is that only final judgments of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Ms Guzman¡¯s Motion to file an Addendum to Answer the Secretary-General¡¯s Appeal, after finding that the material she wished to submit was more properly suited for a hearing on the merits and was not germane to the issue being reviewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the contested decision was not affected by the exclusionary provision of Article 10(2) of its Statute and Article 14 of its Rules of Procedure was not supported by the contents of Ms Guzman¡¯s amended Motion of...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...