±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence against the Appellant uncovered by the investigation was so overwhelming that the only reasonable conclusion available to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. Noting that the evidence that he was in possession of the stolen card and that he used it to refuel his own private vehicle was not contested by the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his explanation of how he came into possession of the stolen card and how he came to use it was incapable of belief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the established facts amounted to serious...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify ±¬ÁÏÍøAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute which provided...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could discern no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was merit to the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/017. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-363. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in deeming the...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

The Appellant appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment failure to consider several points and to address compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the requisite grounds in his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not allow new claims to be raised on appeal when the circumstances giving rise to such claims were known to a party at the time and should have been presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision not to award compensation on the basis that there was no evidence in support of the Appellant¡¯s claim of psychological suffering. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...