±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals, one against Order No. 103 (NBI/2012) and one against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/116. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT; rather, his claims addressed the merits of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that even if the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law or fact and as also alleged in the case, committed an error of procedure, this did not instance any excess of jurisdiction or competence on its part such as would entitle the Appellant to bypass the exception to the right to appeal set out in Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by awarding compensation for distress without a previous claim for damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr Debebe¡¯s claim before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had been limited to material or pecuniary damages related solely to remuneration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for moral damage. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for moral damages.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Registry. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the new evidence related to matters falling outside the scope of his application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the only legal issue arising for determination was whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages as a result of the issuance of the reprimand. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Administration had rescinded the impugned decision even before the Appellant had filed his ±¬ÁÏÍøDT application, and by corollary should then have removed the written reprimand and all reference to it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ST/AI/2003/8 was inapplicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the relevant administrative instruction was ST/AI/2010/3, which integrated the recruitment, placement, promotion and mobility of staff within the Secretariat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in its view, the authority to make lateral transfers to fill job openings at the same level extended to both immediate and anticipated job openings, including posts that would become vacant due to retirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned decision complied with the legal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and fact by awarding a remedy to Mr Nwuke. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the violation of Mr Nwuke¡¯s due process rights did not, in and of itself, entitle him to an award of damages and that there was no evidence of any pecuniary loss or harm suffered by Mr Nwuke as a result of said violation. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that not every violation of a staff member¡¯s right will necessarily lead to an award of compensation and there are no legal grounds that can justify such an award when no actual prejudice is found. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.