2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-712, Krioutchkov
On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that there was no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT 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¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT would not...
2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-708, Finniss
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the impugned Order ceased to have any legal effect when the management evaluation decision was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the issuance of the management evaluation had rendered the Order under appeal moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-699, Vukasovic
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...
2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-688, Haimour and Al Mohammad
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...