±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA in tranche 2 list. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal while the application for revision before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was still pending. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new job opening for 13 S-3 level vacancies, for which the Applicant was invited to interview, is a matter which could be relevant to the issue of the quantum of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to complete its hearing of the application for revision of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the undisputed facts, the evidence of a credible report, coherent hearsay evidence pointing to a pattern of behaviour, the consistency of the witness statements, the unsatisfactory statement of the staff member, and the inherent probabilities of the situation, taken cumulatively, constituted a clear and convincing concatenation of evidence establishing, with a high degree of probability, that the alleged misconduct in fact occurred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Organisation is entitled to and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment and that the message, therefore, needs...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid¡¯s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...