±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by finding a valid contract of employment between Ms Al Hallaj and ESCWA since no letter of appointment was issued, only an offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a quasi-contract was formed, considering that Ms Al Hallaj had unconditionally accepted and had fully fulfilled all the conditions specified in the offer of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the ESCWA Administration committed two major errors, in breach of its quasi-contractual obligations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ESCWA Administration failed in its due diligence to specify clearly and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the ±¬ÁÏÍøTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

Both parties appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the ±¬ÁÏÍøCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...