±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

Mr. Branglidor appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the totality of the evidence confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that Mr. Branglidor was well aware of the untruthfulness of the forms when he submitted the second claim for the regular disbursement of the education grant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisifed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it held that the act of misconduct was committed with knowledge and intent. Even though the misconduct did not lead to any actual prejudice, since the Administration recovered the payment made in advance and did not pay any further education grant, Mr. Branglidor¡¯s endeavor could have...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it held that ST/AI/2017 was the governing legal framework applicable to the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that joint representation by ±¬ÁÏÍø-Women, where the Appellant currently served, and ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK, where the events in dispute occurred, was justified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the circumstances also justified the granting of an opportunity to supplement the initial reply (and a corresponding right to reply). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that the Appellant had not contested the joint representation before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT at the time and having been afforded the opportunity to answer the supplementary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed. First, the Tribunal reasoned that the JAB did not engage in a critical analysis of the facts of the case and did not apply the law to the facts in order to ascertain whether the exercise of discretion was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the JAB Decision was arbitrary and did not meet the minimum requirements of providing a reasoned analysis. Second, on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the Administration did not notify the staff member of his shortcomings in sufficient time. Neither did It provide the staff member with explicit measures against which his performance would be evaluated. Third...

Mr. Farhadi appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's request for compensation for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's delay in delivering its Judgment within a reasonable timeframe. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 9(1)(b) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute authorises the Appeals Tribunal only to award compensation for harm deriving from an administrative decision, not from a delay in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT shifted the burden of proof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had assessed all the elements of evidence in the record and correctly found that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it found that the Appellant should not have been treated differently from other candidates without justification and that proceeding in the manner suggested by him would have breached the other shortlisted candidates¡¯ rights to fair and full consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that there was a regrettable error in the temporary job opening when it exempted the previously rostered candidates from any further assessment, and that this error was later rectified when all short-listed...

Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment which would...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld such conclusions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were errors by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...