±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying ±¬ÁÏÍøAT that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Secretary-General¡¯s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

On the Appellant¡¯s argument that the selected candidate was ineligible for consideration or selection on the basis that his tenure on the roster had expired (as per former administrative instruction ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1) and in the absence of specific guidelines, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT took note of the human resources practice of recognising as eligible all rostered candidates whose names were on the roster on the date of the opening of the vacancy announcement for the post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly concluded that, given the existence of this practice, the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility was covered by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

On the issue of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding the abolition of her post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the broad discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/106 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/192. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was satisfied that the Complainant did not share the Applicant¡¯s desire to pursue a sexual relationship and that the Applicant¡¯s conduct was unwelcome. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the transmission by the Applicant of a photograph of his genitalia to a female colleague, much less a colleague under his supervision, could at its best, as found by the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), be characterised as outrageous and most probably unwanted. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had clear...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-158. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Laeijendecker¡¯s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the ¡°cheating¡± in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi¡¯s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

On the alleged procedural error of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was well within the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed this ground of appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, affirming the finding of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the ground of appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider that ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR...

±¬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...