±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in reviewing Mr Omwanda¡¯s EOD date, as it was not subject to a timely request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Omwanda knew or ought to have known from his Letter of Appointment the date from which his appointment was effective, that he had been re-employed, not reinstated, and that its terms applied regardless of any period of former service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was statutorily barred from hearing Mr Omwanda¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Ms. Koduru¡¯s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Ms. Koduru¡¯s request for costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

Ms Rockcliffe filed an application for execution of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-807. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the crux of the matter for determination was whether Ms Rockcliffe¡¯s appointment to and her removal from, the Budget Working Group (BWG) in 2018 fell within the scope of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s order in the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had not explicitly addressed the issue of conflict of interest in its judgment, it impliedly rejected it by means of applying the law in force at the time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was egregious that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF re-submitted that the previous decision not to give Ms Rockcliffe...

Noting that the Appellant, the innocent party, lost her employment, her career prospects within the Organisation, and the offending managers remained entrenched in their positions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a substantial variation or a striking disparity between the award made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the award that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered ought to have been made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that an order of reinstatement was unlikely to be implemented, a more generous award was justifiable in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact in denying moral damages, as there was no corroborating...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Newland¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment No. 2018-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-820. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given that Mr Newland had already been paid Special Post Allowance, Hazard pay, and outstanding interest, the only questions requiring determination were whether he was entitled to payment of Rest and Recuperation (R&R), free tickets, and the relocation grant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted that there was a degree of uncertainty regarding these questions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Newland¡¯s claim that he was entitled to the payment of R&R was unsustainable, as it was not an accruable benefit or entitlement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error of fact in stating that the OPT Allowance was paid in local currency, which led ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to commit an error of law in stating that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Area Staff Circular No. A/04/2014 was only applicable to the Jerusalem Allowance and not the OPT Allowance, which was paid in US Dollars. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such an error of law would be inconsequential if its second line of reasoning, that no rule or policy requires the CAF be applied to the OPT Allowance, was correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no rule requiring...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Article 34 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations which provides that a widow¡¯s benefit will be payable to the surviving spouse of a participant who was entitled to a retirement benefit at the date of his death if she was married to the deceased at the date of his separation from service and remained married to him until his death. In accordance with general principles of private international law, the validity of a marriage must be assessed and determined in accordance with the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated, being the law of the Philippines. The Supreme Court of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and fact leading to a manifestly unreasonable decision when it held that Mr Siddiqi had not threatened to kill identified staff members but only had made an unspecified threat to kill ¡°some¡± staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the statements of the three witnesses rendered clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant did not only utter an unspecified threat but that he had threatened to kill identified staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in law and fact when it concluded that threat was not serious...

The Secretary-General appealed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou¡¯s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou¡¯s contract prior to its expiration and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Harris¡¯ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...