±¬ÁÏÍø

The Appellant contested the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that he was afforded full and fair consideration for the position of Chief and argued that he suffered unfair and discriminatory treatment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that if the Administration does not comply with a Tribunal¡¯s order to disclose the reasons for an administrative decision, as such, the Tribunal cannot automatically conclude that the decision was arbitrary, but it is entitled to draw an adverse inference from the refusal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the Administration¡¯s decision must be deemed unlawful, as the Secretary-General refused to comply...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Obdeijn¡¯s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-201. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Obdeijn¡¯s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute from a rule based on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, whilst not all the allegations of misconduct with which the staff member was charged were proven, it was established by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant failed to apply formal methods of solicitation in respect of contracts, in violation of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Financial Regulations, Rules and Procurement Procedures and also failed to refer a contract to the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Headquarters Contracts Review Committee, in violation of further norms. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any errors of fact or law warranting reversal of the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly declined to accept...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that concern about a high-level manager¡¯s poor performance was not an improper motive or basis for the decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was well within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to determine the amount of compensation for moral damages to award a staff member for procedural violations in light of the unique circumstances of each case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cases cited by the Appellant as examples of higher awards were neither applicable nor persuasive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding moral damages of USD 25,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no merit in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...