±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

±¬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 held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal by a full bench of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. The majority of the judges upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the contested decisions were substantively and procedurally flawed and dismissed the appeal. As for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s moral damages award, the majority noted that the purpose of the amendment to Article 10. 5(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, made following General Assembly Resolution 69/203, was to introduce an express requirement that compensation for harm can be awarded only when there is a sufficient evidentiary basis. The majority held that evidence of moral injury consisting...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by awarding...