±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exercise...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judge was biased, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT can be revised, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...

The Tribunal found that the Administration discharged the burden of establishing that misconduct had occurred with regard to most of the allegations and that the established facts legally amounted to misconduct under the regulations and rules. There were no due process violations in the investigation and in the disciplinary process leading up to the disciplinary sanction against the Applicant.

The issue at stake is whether the non-selection decisions were lawful and, if not, what remedies are to be awarded. The scope of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction in selection and appointment matters is twofold: 1) to evaluate if the Administration has followed the pre-established procedures and staff members were given full and fair consideration and 2) to examine if the decision is not blatantly unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. The Tribunal finds that the fact that the Administration decided to consider the result of the LABEL test when examining applications for the job opening does not amount...

The Tribunal found that whereas ±¬ÁÏÍøSOS had called upon the Applicant to comply with the court order under the sanction of deductions, in fact, there were no deductions decided or effected. ±¬ÁÏÍøSOS¡¯s actions were only prefatory. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the application was not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision. The application was dismissed.

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The Applicant did not prove that any exceptional circumstance beyond her control prevented her from filing the application on time. The Applicant¡¯s request for anonymity is granted to ensure the protection of the medical information discussed in the case. Related

The fact that the application was filed on 25 June 2019, a day after the deadline, was not disputed. The contested decision was sent to the Applicant on 25 March 2019, though he maintained that he saw it on 26 March 2019. Even if the Applicant considered 26 March 2019 to have been the date of receipt of the contested decision, the deadline for filing the application would still have been Monday, 24 June 2019. The argument that the Respondent should be considered to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court since he failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge in time was found to be...

Receivability The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was out of time. Thus, the application concerning the Applicant¡¯s separation from service due to post abolition is not receivable ratione materiae. It is clear from the evidence on file that the application concerning the Applicant¡¯s separation from service due to post abolition is time-barred and, consequently, not receivable ratione temporis. Non selection for the re-advertised post of Fundraising Officer The burden to prove unlawfulness in relation to non-selection lays with the Applicant as per the consistent internal case law...

No evidence showed a link between the Applicant having expressed divergent views on a work-related matter and the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. The decision not to extend the fixed-term appointment was based on operational requirements and followed the Security Council¡¯s decision to withdraw MINUJUSTH. The Applicant had no expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment. No evidence showed that MINJUSTH made a written promise to extend the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment. There is no legal provision directing the Administration to find placement for staff members at...

The Applicant failed to indicate a specific date and content of the challenged administrative decision, as she only recalled an email from the Deputy Director, ID/OIOS, which would purportedly confirm an evaluation of insufficiency of the Applicant¡¯s investigatory experience to be recruited for the advertised post. The Tribunal, having considered the above-quoted content of the email, finds it insufficient to substantiate an administrative decision of definitive exclusion of the Applicant from the selection process. It remains, however, that the Applicant was not called for an interview and...