±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also determined that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied the judicial review tests under Article 2(1)(b) of its Statute. It found that the facts of misconduct were established by clear and convincing evidence, including direct testimony from refugees, corroborating documentary evidence, and hearsay, and that the former staff member had solicited bribes from refugees on multiple occasions between 2010 and 2019 in exchange for assistance with resettlement and other ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR services. It held that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct and that the sanction of dismissal was proportionate...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ammar made the Facebook post because the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) inappropriately discounted the possibility that Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account had been hacked. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration met its burden of establishing that it was highly probable that Mr. Ammar posted the Comment and thus publicly expressed support for an honour killing. The Administration produced uncontradicted evidence that the comment came from Mr. Ammar¡¯s Facebook account and he...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...