±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

In reviewing the Appellant¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

The Administration paid the compensation ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the Secretary-General subsequently filed his cross-appeal challenging ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to award compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by paying the compensation ordered, the Secretary-General accepted the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and that his cross-appeal was, therefore, moot.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it decided to give ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...