±¬ÁÏÍø

Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment asking that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reverse the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman¡¯s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found "questionable" the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the investigation reports were not thorough or procedurally fair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the manner in which the inquiry was conducted was adequate for the purposes of a preliminary assessment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in view of the fact that Ms. Rehman was not given or entitled to the reports, the impugned order of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT essentially required the OIAI to provide a written, reasoned decision setting out the findings and reasons for its assessment that the complaints should not be referred to an investigation. The...

Ms. Coleman appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles¡¯ were unknown to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva¡¯s terms and conditions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first explained that under the new reimbursement regime, an expense would be recoverable if: (i) it¡¯s for tuition; (ii) it is paid directly to the school; and (iii) it is certified by the school as being necessary for attendance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim that because another ±¬ÁÏÍø entity would apply a rule more favorably to his case, that entity¡¯s interpretation should trump over the one given by the organization where he actually works. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration¡¯s approach that if an item in a category of fees was inadmissible, then the Administration...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not issued a judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. The Appeals Tribunal explained that priority consideration is afforded only to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments who have the relative competence and skills for a particular job. Priority consideration is thus premised on candidates first establishing themselves as eligible and suitable for a position. Only then does priority consideration operate to permit their selection. To hold otherwise would require preference to be given to redundant staff members holding permanent appointments despite their lack of skills to...

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were unaware of various ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also reasoned prior ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgments do not...