±¬ÁÏÍø

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by finding a valid contract of employment between Ms Al Hallaj and ESCWA since no letter of appointment was issued, only an offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a quasi-contract was formed, considering that Ms Al Hallaj had unconditionally accepted and had fully fulfilled all the conditions specified in the offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the ESCWA Administration committed two major errors, in breach of its quasi-contractual obligations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ESCWA Administration failed in its due diligence to specify clearly and...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the award that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered ought to have been made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad¡¯s appointment was not terminated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...