±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-171. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request was time-barred...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-173. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/106 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/192. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding the abolition of her post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

On the issue of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for...