2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1269, Ashok Kumar Nigam
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld such conclusions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were errors by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1263, AAB
±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1268, Leila Gharagozloo Pakkala
Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.
The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1266, Korkut Yavuz
The only issue on appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment¡¯s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1265, Faraj El-Awar
The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1264, AAC
The essential question for determination on appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the alleged misconduct of creating a hostile work environment and giving of gifts was proved in accordance with the standard of clear and convincing evidence. In other words, did the evidence establish the alleged misconduct to a high degree of probability? At its essence, therefore, this case involves strongly contested disputes of fact about whether AAC conducted himself in a manner that was abusive and created a hostile working environment. The Administration says he did. AAC strongly denies it. Thus...
±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/075, Stepanovic
Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.
The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.
Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1261, Appellant
±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...
±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/074, Duparc
There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.
It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...
2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1262, Egor Ovcharenko et al., Danield Edward Kutner et al.
As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and had no standing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...