Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s request for documents relating to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses as to whether the Administration properly calculated ¡°reasonable and customary¡± expenses was a central issue in contention and was addressed extensively by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had demonstrated no exceptional circumstances which would justify Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT exercising its discretion to file additional pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT without a prior request for management evaluation can only be receivable if the contested administrative decision has been taken pursuant to advise from a technical body, or if the administrative decision has been taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure pursuant to Staff Rule 10.2 following the completion of a disciplinary process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision whilst the decision not to short-list the Appellant is examined as a part of the final non-selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective as the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that it doubted whether the application was receivable, but due to some uncertainties and because the matter was of general interest, it would decide the case on the merits. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that Ms Haq and Ms Kane had a fundamental right to be fully and accurately informed about their pension entitlements at the time of their appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...

On the delay before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the delay was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill ¡°some¡± staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact in stating that the OPT Allowance was paid in local currency, which led Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to commit an error of law in stating that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was applicable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was only applicable to the Jerusalem Allowance and not the OPT Allowance, which was paid in US Dollars. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such an error of law would be inconsequential if its second line of reasoning, that no rule or policy requires the CAF be applied to the OPT Allowance, was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no rule requiring...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General ¡°to grant an appointment¡± to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member¡¯s appointment. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member¡¯s 2016 WAE...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...