±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that success before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, as the unsuccessful party before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the decision to terminate the appointment was unlawful on account of the repeated non-compliance with ST/AI/2010/5 was formalistic. While obviously a work plan should be finalized at the beginning of a cycle, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that there was nothing in ST/AI/2010/5 that held any failure to generate a work plan at the commencement of a cycle to be a procedural flaw resulting axiomatically in any subsequent decision to terminate an appointment being unlawful. Likewise, there is no such consequence for not holding a midpoint review in a timely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Applicant¡¯s claim that she had been downgraded on the basis that: the reclassification/renumbering exercise had a legitimate organizational objective; it was not a classification within the meaning of ST/AI/1998/9; and when the Appellant had submitted her post to proper classification, she was graded at the G-6 level, which was equivalent to her previous grade. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant failed to show that the alignment of her post to conform with the GCS had any detrimental impact on her salary or pensionable...

Scope and standard of review Although the Applicant raised a number of arguments related to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and seeks remedies consequent to this decision, the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not properly put before the Tribunal and does not fall within the ambit of the judicial review in the present case. In any event, the Applicant is time-barred from challenging his separation from service. He was separated from service on 28 July 2014 and he did not submit a request for management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that notifying the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resource Management, in a case where authority to issue a reprimand has been delegated, is not required. Even if it was, its omission could not have had any impact on the validity of the impugned decision. The Applicant had not been properly given the opportunity to comment on the facts and circumstances prior to the issuance of a written or oral reprimand, thus his right to respond embodied by staff rule 10.2(c) was not observed. The facts relevant for the decision were not established to the required standard...

The Tribunal held that the denial of the Applicant¡¯s request for retroactive promotion was lawful. The Tribunal advanced the following reasons: a) It was legitimate for the ASG/OHRM to invoke a reason for denial of retroactive promotion that would have created technical problems and additional costs as pension contributions; b) The deninal of the Applicant¡¯s request for a retroactive promotion was not unlawful because of the length of the selection process, given that the selection concerned a promotion for a D-1 position requiring utmost care in the examination and consideration of the...

Res judicata: Res judicata signifies that the same course of action cannot be adjudicated twice. For the stability of the judicial process, it is desirable that there is an end to litigation. Accordingly, the party who loses cannot relitigate his or her case. Remand: The fact that analogous cases of 14 fellow colleagues from ±¬ÁÏÍøDP based in India were remanded by the Appeals Tribunal to the Dispute Tribunal, further to their respective appeals, has no bearing with respect to the fact that the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s judgment became final and non-appealable for those, such as the Applicants, who did...

Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.

Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...

The application was receivable because there was a reviewable administrative decision stemming from the SRO¡¯s negative comments and rating in the Applicant¡¯s performance appraisal because the Applicant was granted only a six-month contract instead of the one year appointment that he was granted when he initially entered on duty with ±¬ÁÏÍøSMIL. Thus, the SRO¡¯s comments had direct legal consequences for the Applicant in that he ended up with a shorter term of appointment. Although the Respondent had made assurances to the Applicant that the 2015-2016 e- PAS would be rolled back and re-created, his...

The Tribunal concluded that the application was generally not receivable because the Applicant was specifically challenging MEU¡¯s negative responses to her various requests for management evalution. This conclusion nothwithstanding, the Tribunal reviewed each of the Applicant¡¯s claims and concluded that they were not receivable because she: failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of art. 2.1(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute in relation to her claim that there was a ¡°wall of silence¡± was estopped from re-litigating her claim in relation to the delay in releasing the results of...

Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant¡¯s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

The Applicant submitted that his initial ¡°informal¡± enquiries into a possible review of his retirement age only began in July 2016, and that his first formal query of the date was not until 13 August 2016. It was difficult to imagine why the Applicant never thought to query the applicable position, or seek to have the mandatory retirement age in respect of himself reviewed, until five months before he was actually due to retire. Indeed, the Applicant had not sought to even challenge any of the Respondent¡¯s submissions on receivability. While the Tribunal appreciated that a self-represented...

The Applicant failed to comply with art. 8.1(d)(ii) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, because he did not file his application until more than one year after the 90-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred due to the Applicant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. The Tribunal also held that the Applicant failed to articulate any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s separation was lawful. Insofar as the determination that the Applicant was fit to work on the date of his separation from service had been made through the statutory mechanisms specially designed to settle sick leave related matters, and in conformity with the established procedures, the Organization was not bound, under sec. 4.9 of ST/AI/2013/1, to further extend his contract, regardless of whether he still had a balance of sick leave days. The Tribunal also held that, while there was an excessive delay in notifying the Applicant of his separation, he...