±¬ÁÏÍø

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that knowledge of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case was distinguishable from Finniss (judgment No. 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-397) since there was no allegation of bias, discrimination, or any other kind of deteriorated or privileged relationship between the involved candidate and the Deputy CEO. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that the Deputy CEO should not have acted as a voting member of the assessment panel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in order to exclude the Deputy CEO¡¯s involvement in the selection exercise, there must be reasonable grounds and/or evidence of extraneous or improper motives, of which there was none (except unsubstantiated and...

As preliminary matters, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

The Applicant filed a second application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-774 and an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-827. Subsequently, the Applicant requested leave to withdraw these two applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted leave to withdraw the applications and directed the Registrar to close the cases.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law or fact in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err that, in the circumstances of the complaints made and the importance of the Appellant¡¯s role in a difficult duty station, the Respondent was entitled to place the Appellant on Special Leave with Pay while it investigated the allegations against him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ought not to have relied upon Morsy (judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-298), Assale (judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-534), and Sarwar (judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-757) as it did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in the Appellant¡¯s case, not only was there a performance-related justification required to be established but no proper...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because the factual basis for the JAB¡¯s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the consideration of transferable skills as a criterion for future permanent appointment for staff members serving in a downsizing entity is a relevant factor and a legitimate consideration because the finite mandate of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) meant that such staff members had no realistic career prospects in that entity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a rational basis for the denial of permanent appointments for the language staff (professional and general service) given the winding down of ICTY and the diminishing need for Bosnian, Croatian...