±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Ross¡¯s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err...

±¬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 first noted that neither party disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the staff member that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

The purpose of compensation: Since the very purpose of compensation is to place the staff member in the same position he or she would have been in, had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the Tribunal first determines the likelihood that the Applicant would have been offered a hypothetical new contract and thereafter the characteristics of it. Likelihood of being offered a new contract: The Applicant did not just lose a chance of being considered for a new position; rather, it was only reasonable to assume that the Applicant would have been offered a new contract, had...

The Tribunal finds that both appraisal processes are tainted with procedural flaws. The first performance appraisal did not result in new ratings being given by the rebuttal panel. The second performance appraisal was based in part on the earlier assessment and it did not give sufficient time to the Applicant to improve his performance. Though the Administration is not bound to apply administrative instruction ST/AI/2002/3 to evaluate the performance of 300 series staff members, once it has decided to apply the administrative instruction, the latter must be fully complied with. In the present...

As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of fact in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that similar acts require similar rules, the decision that modifies the original provision governing the promotion procedure in ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR must be taken through the same procedure followed to adopt the original provision. While the Tribunal can only examine the legality of a decision which has been subject of a request...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which is superior in the hierarchy of norms to the Staff Rules, states that an applicant should file an application within 90 days following the expiry of the 45-day period for the management evaluation if the Administration has not replied to his/her request. If the Administration replies after the 45-day period but before the expiry of the 90-day period, a new 90-day period to contest a decision before the Tribunal starts to run. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the...

The Deputy High Commissioner, who has received a delegation from the High Commissioner, is legally competent to carry out the management evaluation of a decision taken by the latter. The legality of a decision must be assessed as at the date when it was taken, and not in light of subsequent circumstances. As regards promotions, considering the discretionary nature of these decisions, the Tribunal¡¯s role is only to review the legality of the procedure followed and to examine whether there have been any errors of facts in the assessment of the staff member¡¯s career. Under the principle that...