±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law, and followed binding ±¬ÁÏÍøAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT could not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was reasonable for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

±¬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...