Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/116. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Appellant¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-158. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that no appealable administrative decision was identified by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly assessed the actions and/or omissions against the definition of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in law when it stated that the Administration¡¯s proposed alternative did not qualify as a final decision, nor could it be considered as a decision not to proceed with the rebuttal process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the Appellant¡¯s written or oral submissions to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made any error of law or fact in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Asariotis. Considering first the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the ground of appeal related to claimed errors in procedure on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to deal specifically with certain issues, namely the benefits Ms. Asariotis lost and priority that would have been afforded to her as a female candidate, did not manifestly affect the outcome of the case, in view of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the decision to cancel the vacancy announcement was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the sanction was not disproportionate and noted that the Secretary-General could have chosen to summarily dismiss Mr Nasrallah or to separate him without compensation and indemnities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although no investigation was necessary as the facts were not contested, the Organisation committed an egregious error in taking almost two years to finalise the disciplinary proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that this delay worked in Mr Nasrallah¡¯s favour, permitting him to benefit from two years¡¯ further service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that applications to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/034 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Perelli was...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/106 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/192. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in concluding that the Administration¡¯s decision, to take into consideration in the context of the Appellant¡¯s 2009-2010 performance appraisal events post-dating 31 March 2010, was superseded by the Administration¡¯s subsequent change of approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined that the Appellant¡¯s claims in this regard had become moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in rendering the Appellant¡¯s complaint about the rebuttal issue moot considering the subsequent reversal of the decision of 24 November 2010, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to give sufficient weight to a central...

To the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT granted the withdrawal request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the determination made by the Programme OiC, namely that the application for sabbatical leave should not be forwarded to the Committee, was not within the Programme OiC¡¯s power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the decision made by the Programme OiC was in breach of the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment ¡°specifically, his right to have his application forwarded to the Committee and the [Assistant Secretary-General], OHRM¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly observed that an ¡°incomplete application may therefore be one which is missing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not...