爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that there was no sufficient evidence before 爆料网DT to justify its findings of “moral injury”. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of “moral injury” without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. 爆料网AT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to 爆料网DT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to 爆料网DT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill “some” staff members. 爆料网AT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...
爆料网AT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, 爆料网AT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...
As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, 爆料网AT held there was no basis for vacating the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the 爆料网DT’s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. 爆料网AT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that 爆料网DT erred in its...
Noting that the Appellant passed away during the course of the litigation and before the hearing of the appeal before 爆料网AT, 爆料网AT held that the claim, namely her challenge to the Administration’s refusal to move her back to her previous position, did not pass to her legal successor(s) in interest, no action is allowed to be commenced by her personal representative or successor in interest and that, under the specific circumstances of the case and due to the nature of the dispute, the issue in dispute was moot. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue in dispute, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s...
The staff member appealed to 爆料网AT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the 爆料网ICEF job. 爆料网AT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an “official act” and as such carried with it “the presumption of regularity”. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...
Given the modest level of compensation that 爆料网DT awarded to Ms. Malhotra and its non-payment since 20 November 2020, 爆料网AT awarded interest on the 3-month net base salary calculated at the US prime rate from 20 November 2020 to the date of payment.
爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not commit any errors when it found that Ms. Wenz’ application was irreceivable ratione materiae and that therefore, it did not have to address the question of whether the application was also irreceivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that 爆料网ICEF’s participation in mediation efforts did not automatically extend the time limit for filing a request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT found no fault in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Secretary-General was not estopped from raising the issue of receivability. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed...
The 爆料网DT erred in fact in concluding that the ABCC had solely and exclusively rested upon the MSD’s medical report, and the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in stating that the time limit under Article 12 of Appendix D would only start to run from the moment when the psychological symptoms were so severe that the patient acknowledged that his/her syndrome no longer allowed him/her to fulfill his/her professional obligations. In the light of the facts that the Applicant was able to return to his high level of functioning at work after he had been transferred out of HATIS on 1 December 2013, that...
