±¬ÁÏÍø

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant¡¯s application for mobility allowance.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that accounting for factors such as ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant¡¯s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make such findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erroneously awarded the Appellant moral damages because she did not produce any corroborating evidence to support the contention that harm had occurred. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award for moral damages would stand since the Secretary-General had not appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is no corroborating evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages to ¡°restore her professional, physical and emotional suffering¡± and for ¡°irregularities and ignorance. ¡± The appeal could not succeed on those claims. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that a referral for accountability is...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...