±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in...

Ar±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the inference drawn by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the written test should have been prepared by the Hiring Manager, and not the direct supervisor of the position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion, that the Appellant had failed to show that the Hiring Manager¡¯s intervention in the preparation of the written test resulted in her non-selection for the contested post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the design, conduct, and evaluation of the written test did not constitute a violation of the Appellant¡¯s right...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s suggestion that the standard of proof required to rebut the presumption of regularity should be one of preponderance of evidence, was not correct and that the rebuttal of the presumption should occur only where clear and convincing evidence establishes that an irregularity was highly probable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s version did not support an inference of corruption of the process or that he was not fully and fairly considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Appellant met all the educational, work experience, and language requirements of the position, he failed...

As a preliminary issue, Mr Chhikara brought a motion seeking leave to adduce additional evidence in the form of an affidavit setting out his credentials for the post and credentials of the selected candidate, claiming that he was not aware that this information was relevant at the time he made his initial submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused this motion on the basis that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated and that Mr Chhikara¡¯s explanation that he only realized the relevance of additional evidence after the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision did not escape the fact that it was known to him at the time. As another...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the eleven new grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant for the first time on appeal were not receivable. They were for the most part alleged minor procedural defects that in all probability if proven, would have minimal, if any, impact on the fair and full consideration received by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was sound and unassailable, that it correctly determined the issues and dismissed the Appellant¡¯s grounds of review for sustainable reasons. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to identify any...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appellant did not identify the alleged defects in the judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment was defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely reiterated allegations already thoroughly examined by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings such as to warrant its reversal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

On the amount of compensation in lieu of rescission, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied Article 10(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation of USD 2,000, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered the chances of success as well as the difference of net base salary between the one Mr. Krioutchkov received at his current grade and step and his potential income as of the relevant date, limited the projection of the difference in salary to two years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings ±¬ÁÏÍøAT would not...