±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the incidents in question occurred before ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated, it was not applicable in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unnecessary for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to apply ST/SGB/2008/5, which was clearly not in force at the time of the incidents. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the error committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, finding that Mr Nogueira in any event merited a compensatory award for harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Nogueira was entitled to an effective remedy for the violation of his legal right to a workplace...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that parties before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT remained legally valid until such time as ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s refusal to comply with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order was vexatious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal in part.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was persuaded for reasons of equity and good faith by the Appellant¡¯s arguments rather than those put forward by the Secretary-General, although it did not accept the entirety of the Appellant¡¯s arguments on the discontinuation issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in failing to give due consideration to the arguments raised by the Appellant regarding the years 1989 to 1997, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in retroactively applying former Staff Rule 104. 3 set forth in ST/SGB/2003/1 to the entirety of his service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was entitled to rely on the statutory provisions in force when he last...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the open animosity and ill-feeling between the PCO and the staff member, the Administration should not have included the former in the interview panel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the test for apparent bias applied by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct, regardless of whether a fair-minded observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the interview panel was biased. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was best placed to calculate on the evidence the appropriate level of compensation and found no reason to disturb the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the misconduct had been established...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact in determining that the contested decision was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the staff member could not challenge the decision not to reinstate him because he had entered a binding contract with the Administration when he signed the offer of appointment or the letter of appointment, both of which were silent about reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the reinstatement was not foreclosed by the absence of a reference...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the absence of any breach of the staff member¡¯s substantive or procedural rights during the selection exercise precluded the award of moral damages to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member could not show a breach of a fundamental nature or that he suffered harm, stress or anxiety directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his substantive or procedural rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s failure to respond to staff members¡¯ repeated requests for information was not a breach of his substantive contractual...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman¡¯s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no legal authority for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to commence the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...