±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its judgment, although ±¬ÁÏÍøAT differed in its reasoning. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not approve the award of compensation when absolutely no harm had been suffered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that a staff member had the right to be informed of administrative decisions affecting them, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a few days lapse was inconsequential and, in the matter before it, had no consequences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment awarding compensation.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, although not all allegations of misconduct against Mr Masri were proved, some of the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence established that Mr Masri met vendors at his home outside working hours and discussed ±¬ÁÏÍø Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) contracts, he received the benefit of interest-free loans from two vendors, and he gave assistance to a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to present additional evidence. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made any errors in finding that the Administration met its obligations to the Appellant as a permanent staff member under the applicable Staff Rules and administrative issuances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was given a three-month temporary appointment after her post was abolished and reasonable efforts were made by the Administration to try to find her a suitable post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence to support the allegations of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s intervention. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-096). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from awarding any compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the reasons for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissing his appeal were valid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law by upholding the decision to summarily dismiss the staff member, which was taken in violation of the requirements of adversarial proceedings and due process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while the use of statements gathered in the course of an investigation from witnesses who remain anonymous throughout the proceedings, including before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, cannot be excluded as a matter of principle from disciplinary matters, a disciplinary measure may not be founded solely on anonymous statements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered rescission of the contested decision to summarily dismiss the staff...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that: the Appellant was properly subjected to a disciplinary hearing; the disciplinary procedures operated fairly; the Appellant disclosed his part in the events at a time when he had no option but to do so; the Appellant did not report the fact he received the hospitality from a vendor; the Appellant substantially admitted the allegations; the Appellant put at risk the reputation and standing of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Procurement Division; there was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, and having regard to the Appellant...