Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, even assuming that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Executive Director¡¯s actions disregarded Mr Verschur¡¯s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months¡¯ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Article 10. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute limits the total compensation awarded under subparagraphs (a) or (b), or both, to an amount that shall normally not exceed two years¡¯ net base salary of the applicant, unless the Tribunal orders the payment of higher compensation and gives the reasons for that decision. In cases where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinds an illegal decision to dismiss a staff member, the Administration must both reinstate the staff member and pay compensation for loss of salaries and entitlements. If the Administration elects to pay compensation in lieu of the performance of a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration¡¯s withdrawal of the offer of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stated the principle that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci. Recalling that compensation in the absence of actual injury is without legal basis, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law. However, acceding in part to the cross-appeal by Mr Bertucci, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that when the disciplinary procedure does not bear out allegations against a staff member that may have been considered during a preliminary investigation, entitlements that may have been lawfully withheld pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2004/3 must be paid in full, including interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award...

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 had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

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 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...

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 stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the use of the word ¡°annul¡± would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...