±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s contention about the quantum of compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Executive Director¡¯s actions disregarded Mr Verschur¡¯s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for a de novo review.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration applied ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi¡¯s favour. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered ¨C or even favoured for reasons of gender ¨C in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF during the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The staff member appealed on the ground that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

Regarding the allegations that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...