Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not properly review the impugned administrative decision to determine whether the Administration had given full and fair consideration to staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had fully complied with Section 1 of ST/SGB/2009/10 and paragraph 5 of the Guidelines, as it must when considering whether a staff member is eligible for conversion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made a significant error of law in concluding that the impugned decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as a consequence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Income Tax Unit¡¯s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife¡¯s income tax liability in future years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s claim for a refund was not moot, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal authority for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to commence the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that V01 had not been placed under oath before giving her interview and that she did not sign the transcribed version of her interview statement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that V01¡¯s transcribed statement, in which she said that the Appellant had raped her and engaged in sex with her, was neither reliable nor trustworthy; it was solely hearsay and insufficient, by itself, to prove the charge that the Appellant engaged in sexual activity with a minor. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that similarly the other written documents were replete with hearsay and multiple hearsays and were neither trustworthy nor sufficient to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-173. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke¡¯s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that when it determines that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified that this did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ¡°Applicant¡± (anonymity granted) against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/079. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s case that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

The Tribunal, referring to O¡¯Hanlon, (which was not before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT), stated that, ¡°This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O¡¯Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-131 by Ms Cohen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute or Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reducing the compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Appleton and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held by majority that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it declined to award compensatory damages to Mr Appleton. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to approach the issue of compensation under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by engaging in a consideration of Mr Appleton¡¯s likely prospects of success. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Mr Appleton¡¯s appointment to the post was not a foregone conclusion and thus he had no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant¡¯s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General¡¯s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the approach of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not merit the remedy...