±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s appeal as well as the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s request for an oral hearing after finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Krioutchkov¡¯s application was receivable by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and noted that, in order to trigger the statutory time limits for each selection decision, it is necessary for the Administration to notify the unsuccessful candidates of the issuance of each of such decisions. To that end, Mr Krioutchkov only learned at the beginning of February...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically the question of whether Mr Wilson¡¯s circumstances were sufficient to vitiate the Assistant Secretary-General of OHRM¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the criteria set out in Sanwidi, 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-084 (para. 42), according to which it can interfere with an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no basis for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to conclude that ¡°no proper consideration was given to [Mr. Wilson¡¯s] individual circumstances and attributes that may have warranted a legitimate exception in this case. ¡± ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was sufficient basis set out...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all arguments made on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the execution of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-516 wherein ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion seeking execution was properly filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the only...

±¬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 considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the amount of the award of compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of moral damages was supported by the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that the amount was not excessive based on that evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that the award in the present case should be compared with awards in similar non-renewal cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not committed any error in its assessment of the award of moral damages and that the Secretary-General had not established any ground which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s...