±¬ÁÏÍø

In judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050/Corr. 1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal that centred on whether the Appellant should be awarded enhanced compensation of three months¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make a reversible error in declining to award compensation for moral suffering. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case was distinguishable from Mebtouche (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/039), where the Applicant, Mr Mebtouche, had already retired and had no chance of being promoted, therefore enhanced compensation was justified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that enhanced compensation could not be awarded to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, therefore, that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. The case was remanded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to be heard afresh.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not filed untimely and was, therefore, receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, whatever the gravity of the irregularity committed by the Administration and the number of points obtained by the Applicant in the 2007 promotion session, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error in providing that the High Commissioner could decide to pay compensation rather than execute the rescission order. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in setting the amount of compensation at 8,000 Swiss francs, did not make a manifest error. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, concerning the conclusion that compensation should be paid for moral damages...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

In Judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-050/Corr.1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred on questions of...