±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and distinguished the case at hand with the two cases cited by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that in the case at hand, the staff member¡¯s actions could have a substantial reputational impact on the Organization and could also adversely affect the relationship between the Organization, Member States and the Host Country. The Tribunal emphasized that the actions of the staff member went beyond the mere internal affairs of the Organization and in fact the fraudulent act was used as an instrument to avoid legal proceedings in the Host Country. As such, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the misconduct...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Rugerinyange. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Rugerinyange sought to challenge an administrative decision directly affecting the terms of his new contract as an individual contractor. Therefore, even if the administrative decision of placing him on administrative leave with pay referred to facts which had occurred while he was still a staff member, as he claimed, it affected the new contract and his new capacity as an independent contractor. As such, he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was reasonable for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Postica. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment and dismissed the appeal.

The staff member appealed to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT arguing inter alia that there was no clear and convincing evidence in the record showing that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation at the time he applied to the ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF job. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the letter from the IOM Legal Counsel (an authorized representative of an agency within the United Nations System) enjoyed the status of an ¡°official act¡± and as such carried with it ¡°the presumption of regularity¡±. The Tribunal found that once this evidence had been adduced, it was incumbent upon the staff member to rebut it, which he failed to do...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1055. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

The evidence and submissions on record are insufficient to determine the material issue as to whether the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation totaled less than, or in excess of, USD 25,000, in order to determine the authority of the Secretary of the ABCC to take the contested administrative decision. Hence the remand to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to determine whether the Secretary of the ABCC had the valid power to take the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...