±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically whether General Assembly resolutions 63/250 and 65/247 apply to staff in the General Service category, and whether Staff Rules 4.14(b) and 4.16(b) apply to staff at the General Service level. With respect to the first issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that Paragraph 23 of section II of General Assembly resolution 63/250 and Paragraph 50 of section VI of General Assembly resolution 65/247 include two categories of staff members in the United Nations Secretariat who have the right to be granted a continuing appointment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and fact by awarding a remedy to Mr Nwuke. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the violation of Mr Nwuke¡¯s due process rights did not, in and of itself, entitle him to an award of damages and that there was no evidence of any pecuniary loss or harm suffered by Mr Nwuke as a result of said violation. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that not every violation of a staff member¡¯s right will necessarily lead to an award of compensation and there are no legal grounds that can justify such an award when no actual prejudice is found. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, which was limited to a challenge of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s method of calculating the compensation awarded to Mr Nyasulu as an alternative to the rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr Nyasulu presumably had no objection to the compensation being re-calculated, as he did not rebut the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had no option but to remand the case as, in order to rule on the Secretary-General¡¯s request, it would first need to be satisfied that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission was not correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that could not be done because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, specifically whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights by not rendering a fully reasoned judgment and had thus committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have examined and stated in its judgment whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant continued to fight in a severe manner causing physical injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have addressed the question as to whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had used physical force against a driver in April 2013, especially since...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that both the ASC and APD bestow discretion on the Agency to pay an AAA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the two instruments, the ASC and the APD, were easily reconcilable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASC deals with the specific situation where an Area staff member acts in an International professional post, while the ADP deals with all other cases of acting appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no manifest intention or inevitable construction that the Agency intended to abrogate the specific policy in the ASC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in its finding that the ASC had not been implicitly abrogated...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT summary judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and found that the manner in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT went about investigating the disputed facts, in this case, was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because there had not been adequate fact-finding, there was insufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly held that the need for more evidence, and a factual determination based upon it, required the matter to be remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for fresh consideration, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment, and remanded the matter to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the Appellant's claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...