±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to be non-receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the impugned judgment followed ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that due...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in fact or law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in ordering both an extension of Mr Sannoh¡¯s appointment and payment of a termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøMIS Information Circular No. 334 provided that staff with fixed-term appointments that are due to expire shortly will have their appointments extended for one year and, should a staff member¡¯s function no longer be required by the mission prior to the expiration of their fixed-term appointment, a termination indemnity may be payable in accordance with Staff Regulation 9. 3 and Annex III of the Staff Rules...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes¡¯ claims of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily denied the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit an amicus curiae brief. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Board of Examiners found the Appellant to be one of 68 applicants who, although meeting the minimum requirements, were not deemed the most qualified and therefore not convoked to the examination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal did not identify any errors in the reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found no basis for disagreeing with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The first issue ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered was whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in applying ST/AI/2010/3 to the selection of staff for the G-7 post and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the language of paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to United Nations Personnel Procedures Application to the ±¬ÁÏÍø Joint Staff Pension Fund requires that ¡°[t]he General Service staff of the [Pension] Fund secretariat shall be appointed and promoted through the normal [United Nations appointment and promotion] procedures, according to the policies applicable at the duty stations in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and noted that the Secretary-General has broad discretion in matters of staff selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the extensive correspondence between Mr Bali and management indicated that he was aware that his candidature would be considered along with all other applicants, and that his name was placed on a roster of pre-approved candidates for potential consideration for future job openings with similar functions at the Secretariat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that Mr Bali was encouraged by the Office of Human Resources Management¡¯s (OHRM) advocacy and information...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s claim was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was evident that the Appellant knew of the process of management evaluation at the time of the impugned administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly exercised its discretion to award costs against the Appellant for abuse of the judicial process, as her failure to apply for management evaluation was deliberate and thus her application was frivolous and vexatious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.