Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA in tranche 2 list. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not correctly apply the law in considering Mr Riecan¡¯s challenge to the selection for the post and made errors of law and fact in accepting the staff member¡¯s application. On the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was a duty of the assessment panel in the course of a selection process to consider the e-PAS reports of the candidate and reflect that consideration in its own report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into...

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no fault in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ¡°generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute prevents Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT from receiving a case which...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had the inherent power to...

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 Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no obligation for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only proper course for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.