±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the facts suggest that the participant¡¯s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant¡¯s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant¡¯s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that Mr. Reiterer had committed the alleged misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Reiterer, namely that he violated ST/SGB/2008/5 concerning count one and ST/AI/2013/4 concerning count two. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that given the nature and the specific facts surrounding Mr. Reiterer¡¯s misconduct, the sanction of demotion by one grade with deferment, for one year, of eligibility for consideration for promotion, was not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT concurred with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and raised it for the first time before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/027. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to consider that it...