±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law in substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding how the selection process should have been conducted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had improperly relied on ¡°logic¡± to insert a step into the assessment process that was not required under the staff selection system established under the Staff Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly erred on a matter of law and had exceeded its competence by deciding that the DSS/SSS management lacked...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to conduct a fresh investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that pursuant to Article 30 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had very thoroughly considered the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal from the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯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, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that (1) ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make reference to a specific provision providing for this duty; (2) the fact that the panel did not take into...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that success before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, as the unsuccessful party before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.