±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by Ms Tsoneva and an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation of the prescribed procedure, leading to the discontinuation of Ms Tsoneva¡¯s position, noting that there was no requirement that the staff member¡¯s meeting with the manager must take place after the staff member had received a written notification or that the manager must consult a concerned staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Director complied with the prescribed procedure by discussing the matter with Ms Tsoneva, informing her in writing of his intention to request...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of fact or law when it concluded that the difference of treatment between the Appellant and his former colleagues who had undergone a competitive selection process was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was reasonable and lawful to treat them differently at the time of deciding about the possible extension of his fixed-term appointment because equality meant not only the equal treatment of equals but also the unequal treatment of unequal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no flaw in the motivation of the impugned judgment that could result in a manifestly unreasonable...

On the alleged procedural error of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was well within the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed this ground of appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, affirming the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal.

The Appellant requested that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Appellant¡¯s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT RoP, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s refusal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for his witness to be called. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and that it was not clear that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had considered that evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for not calling the witness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the 2009 Johnson case and the present case dealt with identical factual circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General contended that, following the issuance of judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-240, it was clear that he could no longer require staff members to apply their foreign tax credits to reduce tax liability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had already used her foreign tax credit in 2010 before the Organisation changed its policy and rescinded its decision to require her to apply her foreign tax credits for her 2010 tax...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation of the relevant jurisprudence was correct and that it did not commit any error in law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took care to examine the evidence in order to ascertain if, in fact, an express promise of renewal had been made to the Appellant. Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was unable to find any such evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submissions regarding his work experience, duties, and responsibilities, functions of his duty station, and his interest in a renewal had no merit as grounds for an expectancy of renewal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...