±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to reverse the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that a legitimate expectation of a one-year extension was unequivocally created by virtue of the decision taken at the Core Management Group meeting. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision that Mr Munir had a legitimate expectation and the decision of the Resident Representative not to seek a one-year renewal of his contract was an unlawful exercise of discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate that the compensation was unreasonable because there was a...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that his non-renewal was a disguised disciplinary measure and that thus, management evaluation was not required, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the argument had no merit and that the Appellant could not evade the statutory obligation of management evaluation by characterising the dispute decision as a disciplinary matter. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the facts and the applicable statutory law and jurisprudence in arriving at its decision that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, having failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error of law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law when it found ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not accord any deference to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all arguments made on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s approach. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT supported ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT suggested that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the Registries...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erroneously awarded the Appellant moral damages because she did not produce any corroborating evidence to support the contention that harm had occurred. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award for moral damages would stand since the Secretary-General had not appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is no corroborating evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages to ¡°restore her professional, physical and emotional suffering¡± and for ¡°irregularities and ignorance. ¡± The appeal could not succeed on those claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that a referral for accountability is...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.