±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the Administration had failed to provide a performance-related justification for its decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision not to renew Mr Ncube¡¯s appointment had to be upheld despite the fact that his e-PAS suffered from procedural irregularities as it did not consider that the flaws rendered the appraisal unlawful or unreasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the decision not to renew the appointment was justified because the Secretary-General proved that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal against both ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/106/Corr.1 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/106/Corr.2 which did not concern the determination on the merits of the application, but rather the rejection of the Appellant¡¯s application for interim measures by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and certain conduct by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and its Registrar. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s criticisms of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision to amend its own Judgment were well-founded as the corrections went beyond clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slips or omissions; they were unexplained corrections that altered the main findings of the Judgment and...

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 an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have the power to remand the case back to the ABCC, since an order under that provision requires the concurrence of the Secretary-General to that effect. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only proper course for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to take was either to remand the case to the ABCC with the Secretary-General¡¯s concurrence or to consider whether the procedural flaws warranted the rescission of the impugned administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, by making an order to remand the case to the Administration without the concurrence of the Secretary-General, exceeded its competence and committed...

Ms Nielsen appealed judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/111 (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2016-964) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/114 (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2016-969). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consolidated the two appeals. Ms Nielsen submitted motions to withdraw her appeals following successful mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motions to withdraw the appeals and directed the Registrar to close both ±¬ÁÏÍøAT cases.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

On the issue of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT contesting the Conciliation Committee¡¯s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen¡¯s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar¡¯s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, absent a successful...