±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the present case, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s review of the factual situation by necessity involved consideration of issues beyond the mere fact of the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract and, thus, found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s submission that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s deliberations on the issue of non-renewal took place in isolation of the facts surrounding the decision. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to account for the negative impact of the non-renewal of his personal and professional life, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the Secretary-General¡¯s exercise of discretion to take action to address the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s contention, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not required to ascertain whether the closure of the Centre was a consequence of mismanagement or of any other factor since the primary purpose was not to get rid of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not ascertaining whether the closure of the Centre was the result of serious mismanagement and irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant failed to submit sufficiently clear and convincing evidence that the desire to retaliate against him...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the statement dated 26 November 2003 was neither a decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment nor a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the statement was merely a publicly stated opinion which had no legal consequences on the Appellant who, in addition to having already been informed on 29 October 2003 that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 November 2003, had also declared that he would not be able or willing to continue working for ±¬ÁÏÍøODC after his contract expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in such a case, where the material facts were not in dispute, no additional investigation was required to establish the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the investigative and disciplinary process had not been properly conducted and that Mr Ainte¡¯s due process rights had been violated by the absence of an official investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Ainte had not demonstrated that the Secretary-General failed in any other way to observe his due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years¡¯ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba¡¯s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year¡¯s net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT relied on the Appellant¡¯s statement to ascertain that date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not the task of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT (or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT)...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...