±¬ÁÏÍø

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 held that, at the time ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF sought to make the correction from termination to non-renewal, the staff member was already separated from service, and it was, therefore, too late to reverse the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s separation from service was termination on grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance and that the Administration¡¯s decision to reverse the decision was untimely and ineffective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to reverse ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member had been deprived of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed both appeals by the Secretary-General in judgment No. 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-418. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law when it accepted one of the possible reasonable interpretations of Staff Rule 5.3(e) and decided that the SLWOP did not affect the continuous duration of the staff member¡¯s appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to the assertions made by the Secretary-General, the staff member had in fact an expectation of being granted a permanent appointment and that the evidence had been produced at the special hearing on 4 March 2013. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed...

±¬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 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 ±¬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 held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member¡¯s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that as no request for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal of Ms Salem. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural errors did not amount to an abuse of power. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that absent an abuse of power, the compensation for moral damages had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal, rejected the cross-appeal, and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment in its entirety.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ICTR Registrar¡¯s decision was lawful, and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in the level of award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary...

Noting that that the crux of the Appellant¡¯s appeal was that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to award him moral damages by reason of the violation of his right to a fair recruitment process and a missed opportunity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was merit to the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s claim for moral damages was properly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that on the totality of the evidence, the Appellant had a claim for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the recruitment process was flawed in that it was affected by the perception of bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in...