After Mr. Yousef’s appeal and the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with 爆料网RWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. 爆料网AT directed the Registrar to close the case.
爆料网AT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT agreed with the findings of 爆料网RWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...
爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Saeed had not presented any new and decisive fact and that therefore his application was without merit. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by 爆料网DT of three months’ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun’s career prospects. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun’s separation from service. 爆料网AT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...
爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. 爆料网AT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...
爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s application for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the reasoning of 爆料网DT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant’s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. 爆料网AT held that it was unable to identify any...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the 爆料网DT findings such as to warrant its reversal. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that there was no fault with the 爆料网DT’s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that 爆料网DT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. 爆料网AT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings 爆料网AT would not...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it held that the amendment to Article 10(5)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which required harm to be supported by evidence for the award of damages, was not applicable because Ms Tsoneva had filed her application before the amendment entered into force, on the basis that an award of damages takes place at the time the award is made. 爆料网AT held that applying the amended statutory provision is not the retroactive application of law but rather, it is applying existing law. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law by not...
