±¬ÁÏÍø

Regarding claim 1, the Tribunal held that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant did not provide any evidence that could prove any form of misconduct against the OIOS or ±¬ÁÏÍøIFIL officials who handled his complaint. Accordingly, claim 1 was rejected.

For claim 2, the Tribunal noted that, upon his request, via emails dated 22 August 2024 and 31 October 2024, the OIOS provided the Applicant with an explanation for the closure of his Complaint without investigation. Therefore, claim 2 was found to be moot.

Claim 3 was found not receivable. The Tribunal held that the outcome of a management...

Regarding the decision to not convene a fact-finding panel, the Tribunal recalled its jurisprudence which indicates that a fact-finding investigation may only be undertaken if there are sufficient grounds to believe that a staff member had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct. In the instant case, the Tribunal, concluded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to support his claim.

In relation to the second contested decision, the Tribunal also referred to its settled jurisprudence which indicates that there is no right to FWA. The Tribunal, rather, observed that a denial of FWA...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its competence in ordering the payment of interest from the due date of the relocation grant, but that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in setting the interest rate at 8 per cent. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT must have the power to award interest in the normal course of ordering compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and Order No. 30 to the extent that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded interest on the relocation grant and replaced the interest rate of 8 per cent with the United States prime rate applicable on 4 May 2008 (5 per cent).

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was appealed by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed the scope of judicial review by reviewing the facts and concluding that there was sufficient evidence of inebriation but concluding there was a lower level of alcohol consumed based on the breathalyzer result. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the imposition of the sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity was disproportionate to the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.