±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisifed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that joint representation by ±¬ÁÏÍø-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT shifted the burden of proof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment which would...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld such conclusions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were errors by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...

The only issue on appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment¡¯s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...