±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the appeal only addressed the award of material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was entitled to one year¡¯s gross base salary apart from sick leave for the period of his certified illness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of twelve months¡¯ gross base salary for material damages as a result of the non-renewal was not disproportionate, taking into account his service from 2003 to 2011. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had thoroughly examined the governing principles in awarding damages and followed the jurisprudence of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties¡¯ submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member¡¯s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal by the staff member limited to the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT set the compensation in lieu of reinstatement award by calculating the sum the Appellant would have received for the remainder of his two-year contract, less the amount he received as salaries from other employers during the same period. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in this regard. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that in its assessment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was conscious of the Appellant¡¯s claims for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in view of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Alobwede. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in substituting its own opinion for that of the ICTR Registrar regarding the contested conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the adverse effect on Mr Alobwede was not supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ICTR Registrar¡¯s decision was lawful, and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that it was not, as well as in its consequent award of moral damages for the substantive breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in the level of award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to rescind the contested...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, agreeing with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel¡¯s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reprimand in the offender¡¯s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe¡¯s reputation and career. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not expressly rescind the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of appointment, the award of compensation in lieu of rescission could be read as an implied order of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave no reasoning for the calculation of compensation, nor did it specify what amount corresponded to in-lieu compensation and what amount as compensation for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT awarded three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation in lieu of rescission of the impugned decision to withdraw the offer of...