±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a de novo...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in failing to consider that Staff Regulation 4. 1 does not oblige the Secretary-General to transmit...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the first time the Appellant¡¯s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s order denying the Appellant¡¯s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all the grounds of the appeal and held that the issue of whether the Appellant¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant to determine whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the main issue for its determination was whether, at the time of application, the Inspira system had provided all of the correct options to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was a factual determination which, without relevant evidence, could not be made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to enquire as to what options were available in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ms Kortes¡¯ cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue was whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration¡¯s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The Applicant was charged with having engaged in misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to the...

The Applicant was charged with having engaged in two acts of misconduct, namely: cheating and helping others cheat in the psychometric and English language tests of the Entry-Level Humanitarian Professional Programme (EHP). The Tribunal pronouncements are reflected following the different steps in the analysis of the contested decision. Have the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based been established? The Tribunal found that the investigation report clearly stated the facts and the alleged misconduct. It also provided substantial and critical assessment of the evidence presented to...

In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it has no competency to disturb the award in the judgment, as the Tribunal has already rejected the revision application in Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2019/016. The Tribunal finds that justice would be better served for these matters to be considered by the Appeals Tribunal as there is a further issue that complicates the assessment of compensation herein in light of changed circumstances or new facts.

The impugned decision is not a mere reiteration of a prior decision as in response to the Applicant¡¯s request for reconsideration, the Applicant¡¯s case was resubmitted to the Committee. Thus, the Committee¡¯s decision notified to the Applicant subsequently is subject to this Tribunal¡¯s review. The Health and Life Insurance Section¡¯s advice or failure to give proper advice is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Under the applicable procedures related to exceptional reimbursements, it provides that claims for services and treatments not covered under the insurance programme...

The Tribunal finds the Respondent¡¯s application for interpretation as an attempt to have the Tribunal re-examine its Order, which is not a proper way to seek a reversal or modification of the Tribunal¡¯s Order. As the Appeals Tribunal clearly stated, the exercise of interpretation under art. 30 of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Rules of Procedure is not an avenue for review or the basis for a fresh judgment. It goes without saying that the motion is not receivable and must be dismissed. The Administration provided some reasonable explanation for the contested decision, which is supported by evidence...

The Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal found that the contested decision was rescinded promptly after its issuance. In fact, the main claim of the application was rendered moot even before the commencement of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

The Applicant¡¯s claim for damages based upon an allegation that his property was destroyed and that his private safety deposit box containing USD21,000 in cash was lost was found irreceivable. The Applicant did not include this claim in his application. The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable regarding the claim for reimbursement of the cost of security services from November 2014 till May 2015. That claim did not expressly form part of the application or the management evaluation request. The claim for damages equalling USD150,000 for ¡°subsistence while stranded in Uganda...

Receivability: The Respondent submitted in his reply that the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation was not made within the requisite time limit. However, in denying the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation, the Administration did not reject his claim on the ground that it was filed late but rejected his claim on the merits and thus the Administration implicitly waived the timeline required under ST/AI/149/Rev.4. Since the contested decision is the Claims Board¡¯s decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation and the Applicant complied with the mandatory requirement of submitting a...

The Tribunal held that the Application was moot and irreceivable. The Tribunal observed that it had acquired ex officio knowledge that the Applicant had been separated from service on the grounds of abandonment of post. The Tribunal acquired this knowledge from Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2018/105 that was also filed by the Applicant. In the circumstance, the Applicant was no longer a staff member and her request to be transferred to a duty station where the supply of electricity was stable or to grant her an agreed termination of the appointment had been overtaken by subsequent events rendering the...

The reasons given by the Administration to cancel the selection process are rational, reasonable and supported by the record. The cancellation of the vacancy announcement was based on organizational and budgetary reasons. The staff member who had a lien on the post did return to her post. The Applicant presented no arguments of substance to call into question the lawfulness of the decision to cancel the selection process. The Applicant¡¯s candidacy was afforded full and fair consideration and it was within the reasonable discretion of the Organization to cancel the temporary position.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had attempted to physically remove M, the staff member of a WFP contractor, from WFP premises and that in so doing, he had been imprudent and reckless since he could have sought the assistance of security personnel. The Tribunal found, however, that the allegations that the Applicant had initiated the fight with M and continued to fight severely and inflict serious injuries on him, had not been established by clear and convincing evidence. The Tribunal further found that in imposing the disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, WFP had unlawfully...