±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-039. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte¡¯s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of interest awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on the payment of Mr Ahmed¡¯s accrued vacation days was undue, noting that any delay in the separation formalities was entirely attributable to him and, as such, he could not be compensated for the delay in payment. On the compensation in lieu of notice, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and held that the matter was properly before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and could not be construed as res judicata. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Administration made a commitment to pay Mr Ahmed compensation in lieu of notice and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application of the Secretary-General for interpretation of judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-240. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and was therefore manifestly inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the judgment clearly stated that the utilisation of foreign tax credits constituted a reimbursable payment method and the tax unit had calculated the relevant reimbursable amount at USD 15, 239. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s application and ordered the Secretary-General to pay Ms Johnson USD 15,239 with interest, stating that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any error in fact or law emerging from the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not challenge the competitive procedure¡¯s final administrative act since he only began to contest the Administration¡¯s actions when the selected candidate was laterally moved, and another rostered candidate was appointed as a replacement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member were linked to the administrative decision that completed the selection procedure and that, as such, any breach of his rights could only be caused by that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in ¡°double-counting¡± by using the same element of Mr Andersson¡¯s high chance of promotion to justify both its award of CHF 10,000 in lieu of rescission, as well as its award of CHF 4,000 for moral damages. The claim for moral damages was related to the reparation of an injury, that could not be regarded as covered by the payment of CHF 10,000 awarded as an alternative to rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that Mr Andersson only fleetingly referred to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/159; an appeal by the ¡°Applicant¡± (anonymity granted) against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/079; and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/079. On receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s case that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on the issue of receivability as the non-disciplinary issues contested by the Applicant were never submitted for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in deciding that the non-disciplinary issues had been submitted for management evaluation, erred in law and in fact...