Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that failing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit by him for the absence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Office of Audit and Investigation Services (OAIS) took no decision that materially, adversely, or directly impacted the rights of the Appellant and that it merely made a non-binding recommendation to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the recommendation by OAIS was not an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to hold that the appeal in relation to the investigation was not receivable ratione materiae...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to identify any...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s application for interim measures by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and certain conduct by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and its Registrar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a successful...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...