±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant¡¯s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as a consequence of the ±¬ÁÏÍø Income Tax Unit¡¯s (ITU) unlawful decision, the staff member had been harmed in the amount of the foreign tax credits he was required to use since he no longer had use of these credits to reduce his or his wife¡¯s income tax liability in future years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s claim for a refund was not moot, as ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ITU did not need to provide a refund of the foreign tax credits to the staff...

Regarding the non-selection for the Programme Budget Officer post, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the impropriety in the decision making. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had also failed to put forward any specific evidence substantiating her claim of discrimination, bias, and retaliation to warrant a reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings. Regarding the cancellation of the Administrative Officer post, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had provided sufficient evidence to show that the cancellation of the post was based on Organisational and budgetary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for his witness to be called. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and that it was not clear that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had considered that evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for not calling the witness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the 60 days¡¯ deadline for the staff member to request management evaluation started from 18 March 2011, the date of the impugned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was, therefore, receivable pursuant to Staff Rule 11. 2(c). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding, that the repeated renewal of appointment and penultimate renewal without a break-in-service with the same conditions of service gave Mr. Igbinedion a legitimate expectation of renewal, was per incuriam and contravened clear and consistent jurisprudence...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly determined that the staff member¡¯s application had become moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision to disable the fact-finding panel was superseded by its reconvening, after being impugned by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

Noting that it had received a Motion to Withdraw, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, the appeal having been withdrawn, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment remained in force.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give ±¬ÁÏÍøDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not within ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...