±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Article 34 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations which provides that a widow¡¯s benefit will be payable to the surviving spouse of a participant who was entitled to a retirement benefit at the date of his death if she was married to the deceased at the date of his separation from service and remained married to him until his death. In accordance with general principles of private international law, the validity of a marriage must be assessed and determined in accordance with the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated, being the law of the Philippines. The Supreme Court of the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the finding by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that he had failed to meet his burden of proving that the assignment to work in Sector East was motivated by improper consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly considered the relevant facts and the applicable law in concluding that the Administration had followed the prescribed procedures and acted in accordance with the internal law of the Organisation in separating him for abandonment of post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant could not choose to ignore a lawful direction by the Administration to provide medical...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Amarah and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/041 and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/004. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues pertaining to the CSO selection process and the contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had waived the condition of the 18-month separation after the EVS were not properly before it, as they had not been raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and were therefore not receivable. Noting that Mr Amarah had breached the prohibition of employment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he could not be allowed to breach the rules knowingly, engage in unlawful...

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT limited its consideration to the issue of the amount of compensation awarded in lieu of rescission and the amount of compensation awarded for harm. On the issue of in lieu compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to advance any error of law or of fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in lieu compensation is not intended to compensate for the possible harm suffered by the injured person, as that is the specific aim of compensation for harm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had the discretion to fix this amount as a generic sum and was not bound by...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s appeal as it pertained to his 2016 performance evaluation and OTI, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure such as to affect the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of the e-PERs of the other staff members was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and, therefore, was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reopening of the 2016 e-PER did not affect the overall performance evaluation, which was maintained as ¡°fully meets¡± expectations, and therefore this...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the ±¬ÁÏÍø Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General ¡°to grant an appointment¡± to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member¡¯s appointment. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member¡¯s 2016 WAE...

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to support her allegations of bias, discrimination, and/or improper motives. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had examined all of the grounds raised in the appeal and held that there was no evidence that the Administration did not act fairly, justly, and transparently throughout the restructuring process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any error in law or fact to support her case for a reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment as it related to the non-renewal decision only. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a shifting onus of proof was appropriate where the non-renewal decision was based on a lack of funds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found nothing objectionable with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reference to the burden or onus of proof resting with the Secretary-General in the circumstances of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the Secretary-General failed to establish by evidence that the financial situation of the ±¬ÁÏÍø body which had engaged Ms Loose at the time of the separation was still...