±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/108 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/109 jointly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly ascertained that the failure by the APPC to share with the Appellant an inter-office memorandum prepared by his supervisor regarding the non-extension of his appointment did not affect his legal situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding of fact was not supported by the evidence or that it was unreasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the principle that the party in whose favour a case has been decided is not permitted to appeal against the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/052 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/062. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in order for the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment to be sustained, it must not be based on mere verbal assertions, but on a firm commitment to renewal revealed by the circumstances of the case; and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it found no reason to reverse the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there was no evidence of such a commitment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the efficient or outstanding performance of a staff member on a temporary appointment could not legitimately create an expectancy of renewal of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the need for translator services at ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI could...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to show how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had no reason to disagree with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that OIOS operates under the ¡°authority¡± of the Secretary-General but has ¡°operational independence¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, insofar as the contents and procedures of an individual report are concerned, the Secretary-General has no power to influence or interfere with OIOS. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also has no jurisdiction to do so, as it can only review the Secretary-General¡¯s administrative decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, noted that to the extent that any OIOS decisions are used to affect staff members¡¯ terms or contract of employment, OIOS¡¯ reports may be...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, except for the Appellant¡¯s own assertion, it found no evidence to show that he was a genuine whistle-blower. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not a case of retaliation following a report of possible misconduct, but instead a disagreement between the Appellant and management regarding work matters which was properly addressed in the context of the performance assessment process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract was not retaliatory but based on his performance rating which had been reviewed and confirmed after a rebuttal opportunity was given to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that an employment contract of a staff member subject to the internal laws of the Organisation is not the same as a contract between private parties and that the issuance of a letter of appointment by the Administration cannot be regarded as a mere formality. The issue before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was whether the staff member, who had received an offer of employment, but not a letter of appointment, from the Organisation, should be regarded as a staff member and thus should have access to the internal justice system to contest the legality of the Administration¡¯s withdrawal of the offer of...

±¬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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT having stepped into the shoes of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Medical Director. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...