±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld both ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ¡°generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which requires harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that applying the amended statutory provision was not the retroactive application of law but rather, it was applying existing law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by not...

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings ±¬ÁÏÍøAT would not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that Mr Fasanella was affecting an administrative decision that produced direct legal consequences affecting his employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the complaint that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by considering matters beyond the scope of Mr Fasanella¡¯s request for management evaluation and the Management Evaluation Unit¡¯s response, on the basis that it was the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to adequately interpret and comprehend the application and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had the inherent power to...

±¬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 Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...