±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the separation issue was not receivable because it was res judicata. On the non-selection issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any errors of law or fact in reaching its finding that since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, neither the failure to consider his application prior to the 30-day candidates nor the failure to notify him within 14 days of the selection decision vitiated the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his requests for relief were denied, noting that where an irregularity has no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the Appellant¡¯s post was arbitrary or capricious, motivated by prejudice or extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularity or error of law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was evidence of a process that was motivated by budgetary constraints as well as concerns about the effective management of a redundancy process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no procedural irregularity or any error in law on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no purpose would have been served by the conduct of an evaluation exercise for a post that was about to be or had been abolished. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was a genuine redundancy situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within ±¬ÁÏÍøDP before terminating her permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the Appellant challenged an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment and that the application was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Smith¡¯s request for management evaluation and the MEU¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to adequately interpret and...