Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in this case, the JAB made not a decision, but rather a recommendation to the Registrar of the ITLOS, who in turn, purported to make the decision about Mr. Savadogo¡¯s appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recognized that the ITLOS changed and consolidated the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules so that the JAB now makes decisions (from which appeals may be brought to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) rather than, as occurred in this case, recommendations to the Registrar of the ITLOS, which the Registrar may or may not accept. However, this amendment came too late for the parties in this case. Thus, the original...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the correct way to make the comparison to ensure that the minimum increase in net base salary under Staff Rule 3.4(b) is achieved for the staff member is to compare both remunerations shorn of their COL and post adjustment elements and of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez¡¯s assessments under each. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that although not perfect because of the potential variability of Ms. Gonzalez Vasquez¡¯s personal assessments under each, it achieves the required comparator using the GS net...

Mr. Okwir appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir¡¯s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisifed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that joint representation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den¡¯s decision when he elected to be on the local-currency track was irreversible unless the pre-conditions as set out in Paragraph 31(b) and 38(e) of the PAS were met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den did not meet those pre-conditions and that, as the decision of the Standing Committee was in observance of these provisions, there was no basis to grant Mr. Erg¨¹den the right to revert to the USD track. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no proper basis to compel the Chief Executive of Pension Administration to suspend Turkey from the two-track system. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT shifted the burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

Ms. Koduru appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in concluding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Specifically, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru had failed to meet the burden of proof that the decision was based on ulterior motives and a protracted pattern of harassment, as well as to establish a causal link between the alleged incidents and the challenged administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. Rather, such a decision, as correctly determined by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, was a reasonable and proper exercise of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment which would...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the factual circumstances surrounding the staff member¡¯s transition from the temporary appointment to the FTA demonstrate that she was ¡°re-employed¡± on 1 February 2016. The Organization did not treat her as being continuously employed and it proceeded with an actual separation from service and dealt with the effects that this entails, such as payment of her accrued annual leave while serving on the temporary appointment. The Tribunal further noted that the staff member was re-employed, and not reinstated. The Tribunal remarks that because the temporary...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in any case the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

The staff member¡¯s main claim pertain to the proportionality of the disciplinary measure meted out to him, that is of summary dismissal. The Appeals Tribunal found no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusion that the staff member¡¯s behavior toward the Complainant amounted to serious misconduct. The Tribunal noted (paras. 53 - 56): ¡°¡­ By sexually harassing her, the Appellant violated the applicable Regulations and Rules. He did not conduct himself in a manner befitting his status as an international civil servant. His actions not only violated the Complainant¡¯s personal dignity but also adversely...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from assuming a...

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment asking that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reverse the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...