±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, in light of which ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judge, namely that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no nexus between the emotional distress of preparing for the exam and the impugned decision as the preparation took place prior to the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the contradictory information received by Ms Mirkovic and the lack of responses from the Chief of the Examinations and Tests Section added to her stress and injury was not supported by the facts, noting that written confirmation of what the Chief had told her was not required in order for her to request management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/034 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Perelli was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Appellant did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

On the issue of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...