±¬ÁÏÍø

As a first preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its RoP did...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings in the form of submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had decided previously that the MICT was a Secretariat entity and was thus precluded from holding to the contrary. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not eligible for a continuing appointment for three reasons: (1) he did not work for the Secretariat; (2) the MICT had no authority to grant a continuing appointment; and (3) he was not in active service in the Secretariat under a fixed-term appointment throughout the period of consideration. On consideration...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant¡¯s service-incurred injury was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board¡¯s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regardless of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute precluded an appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT if ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s unsubstantiated allegations of bias and conflict of interest against the judge who signed the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: (1) the Appellant did not provide any evidence of his suitability for conversion to a continuing appointment; (2) his appeal was based solely on the impossibility of the retroactive extension of his fixed-term appointments; and (3) he had been made aware that his fixed-term appointment would be extended pending the appropriate assessment of his performance under the rebuttal process. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was defective or that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT made several findings on the appeal. First, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it did not hold a case management or substantive hearing on the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the first instance Judge is in the best position to decide what is appropriate for the fair and expeditious disposal of a case and to do justice to the parties. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the administrative action was not a disguised disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the USG had the authority to transfer the appellant to a different unit to address a political situation. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a number of the factual findings made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were not supported by the evidence and were unreasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have limited itself to determining whether the Secretary-General was within his authority to impose disciplinary measures on Mr. Hossain, and that by speculating on the misconduct of another individual, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...