爆料网AT held that there was no valid claim of unfair treatment and discrimination by the Appellant against the former Chief of ATS and 爆料网DT therefore correctly limited its consideration to the interview process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was merely repeating arguments that were adequately considered by 爆料网DT and that there were no reasons to reverse 爆料网DT’s judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must, therefore, be narrowly interpreted; 爆料网AT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...
爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-185. 爆料网AT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by 爆料网DT in its Case Management Order. 爆料网AT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. 爆料网AT rejected the application for interpretation.
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Terragnolo’s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by 爆料网DT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. 爆料网AT noted that the impugned judgment followed 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence, but 爆料网DT’s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that due...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Mr Terragnolo’s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by 爆料网DT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General’s appeal, 爆料网AT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. 爆料网AT noted that the impugned judgment followed 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence, but 爆料网DT’s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that due...
爆料网AT preliminarily denied the Appellant’s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, 爆料网AT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. 爆料网AT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of 爆料网DT and found no basis for disagreeing with 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member’s conversion to permanent appointment did not give 爆料网DT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. 爆料网AT held that it was not within 爆料网DT’s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...
爆料网AT held that there was no reason to interfere with 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant had not established the existence of a decision capable of giving 爆料网DT jurisdiction to embark upon a consideration of his complaints. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT should not have embarked on a consideration of substantive issues, such as staff consultations and discrimination arguments, but instead should have confined itself to the issue of receivability. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal with regard to the receivability...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member’s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. 爆料网AT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s failure to respond to staff members’ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. 爆料网AT found no errors of fact or law by 爆料网DT in awarding costs against the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...
