Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Economic loss: Since the applicant was due to retire at the time the selection would have been made, his economic loss was the value of the salary and emoluments of an ASG, without any adjustment for the receipt of entitlements as a D-2 Director, which is a simple calculation of the gross earnings minus deductions, plus the respondent¡¯s subsidy contributions. Any actual income he made is adjusted against this amount. Pension: The pension calculation is more difficult. Two methods of calculation are open as the Pension Fund has stated it will not recalculate the applicant¡¯s pension: the first...

The Secretary-General filed appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an interlocutory appeal is receivable exceptionally in cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not interfere lightly with the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the management of cases. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that one of the goals of the new system of administration of justice is rendering timely judgments; cases before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could seldom proceed if either party were able to appeal interlocutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and raised it for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when the new system was created, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the impugned decision was a contestable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that what constitutes an administrative decision will depend on the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the requirement for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Office at Nairobi (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵON) staff members to possess MIP cards or a Grounds Pass in order to access medical services on credit was for the overall effective administration of the Organisation¡¯s staff medical insurance plan. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this requirement was of general...

The Secretary-General claimed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no power to award interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. The very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in had the Organisation complied with its statutory obligations. In many cases, interest will be by definition part of compensation. To say that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to order the payment of interest would, in many cases, mean that the staff member could not be placed in the same position...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, applying Bertucci (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-062), rejected as not receivable an interlocutory appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the determination by the Ethics Office, that no retaliation occurred, constituted an administrative decision falling within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s jurisdiction. The alleged lack of jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not clearly established in this case: the question of whether there was an administrative decision required adjudication on the merits of the case and could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order for production of the OIOS...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to be heard afresh.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for not being filed against a final judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions on the basis of ¡°minimal showing¡± that the Applicant had been fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal should be regarded as timely because the initial submission in Arabic was received within the prescribed time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fact-finding committee acted in an objective and responsible manner in conducting its investigation and assessing the charges. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting a finding of misconduct, which was not successfully rebutted by the Appellant, which alone was a sufficient basis for the impugned decision. Given the established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it...