±¬ÁÏÍø

Whether the Administration provided a valid and fair reason for the contested decision In determining whether a valid and fair reason exists to terminate the Applicant¡¯s appointment for unsatisfactory performance, the Tribunal will examine in turn the following issues: i. Whether the Applicant in fact failed to meet the performance standards; ii. Whether he was aware, or could reasonably be expected to have been aware, of the required standards; iii. Whether he was given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards; and iv. Whether termination of appointment is an appropriate action for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment awarding compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to find that it was not competent to consider the application as far as it concerned the decision not to award Ms Megerditchian a service contract since such contracts were awarded to non-staff members. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in receiving the application in respect of a service contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its interpretation of the term priority consideration and that a promise of priority consideration in a job application did not by itself give rise to a legal right on the part of Ms...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the compensation awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the Compensation Case, an appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Ethics Policy Case, and a cross-appeal by Mr Shkurtaj of the Compensation Case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a former staff member has standing to contest an administrative decision concerning him or her if the facts giving rise to his or her complaint arose from his or her employment and that there must be sufficient nexus between the former employment and the impugned action. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an award for damages was justified in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the amount of fourteen months¡¯ net...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that the determination made by the Programme OiC, namely that the application for sabbatical leave should not be forwarded to the Committee, was not within the Programme OiC¡¯s power. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the decision made by the Programme OiC was in breach of the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment ¡°specifically, his right to have his application forwarded to the Committee and the [Assistant Secretary-General], OHRM¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly observed that an ¡°incomplete application may therefore be one which is missing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Comerford-Verzuu¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal, regarding whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in holding that the contested decision was dated 2 August 2005 and that the request for administrative review was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the OIOS reply of 2 August 2005 was the administrative decision of which Ms Comerford-Verzuu was seeking a review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the subsequent correspondence was unwarranted and did not extend the time limit for seeking administrative review of the first administrative order. Accordingly, the time limit for seeking administrative...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had neither standing to challenge a decision which he alleged did not comply with the stipulations of his service contract nor the right to request the implementation of an arbitration procedure before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed an error in concluding that the Appellant had manifestly abused the process. The appeal was partially upheld and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment partially vacated regarding the payment of USD 500.00 for abuse of procedure.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...