±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to undertake a proper review of the case since the audio recording of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT proceedings contained the final submissions of both counsels, but not the testimony of the two witnesses and the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s request for documents relating to the calculation of reasonable and customary expenses as to whether the Administration properly calculated ¡°reasonable and customary¡± expenses was a central issue in contention and was addressed extensively by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a de novo...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not fall under any of the categories of potential applicants and had no legal standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, accordingly, the Appellant had no standing before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had no competence to address the merits of her claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and ¡°Comments on the Respondent¡¯s comments¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any errors of law or fact in finding that the applications were not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Local Salary Survey Committee (LSSC) does not constitute a technical body and therefore does not exempt the Appellants from the mandatory first step of requesting a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not fall within the exceptional category of participants who exercised their election for a deferred retirement benefit before 1 April 1997 and were therefore entitled to restore their prior contributory service, as the Appellant exercised her election in September 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to restore her prior contributory service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint that she did not have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations was unconvincing, given, inter alia, the availability of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations and Rules on the website. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Khamis¡¯ proven conduct did not itself amount to misconduct: he did not engage in transactional sexual relations with local persons and his sexual relations with two local women were more in the nature of domestic, albeit polygamous and ¡®open¡¯, relationships. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not established that payments made to both women were commercial transactions in return for sexual favours. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was not such an imbalance of power between Mr. Khamis and the two women that they could be termed...