±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬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...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was disingenuous for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s regulatory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment in its entirety.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...