±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬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 rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no evidence was presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that neither the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute nor the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...