±¬ÁÏÍø

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Since the applications were identical and the Applicants served at the same Organization, the Tribunal joined them and ruled on them with a single judgment. The Tribunal found that the applications dealt with identical matters as that subject of judgment Tintukasiri et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/026, affirmed on appeal by the Appeals Tribunal, and consequently concluded that the applications were not receivable, ratione materiae, under the terms of art. 2.1(a) of its Statute. Receivability ratione materiae: The decision to freeze existing salary scales and to review downward allowances is of a general...

Did the involvement of a retiree from the Organization in the pre-screening and short-listing process, and the competency-based interview, affect the propriety of the selection exercise?The Tribunal found that, while retirees should generally not be hired by the Organization if other options are available, the involvement of a retiree in the selection process did not in any way prejudice the candidacy of the Applicant. The Applicant was found to have met all the requirements for the post, was short-listed and was invited to participate in a competency-based interview. Further, the Applicant...

Was the decision based on properly promulgated legal instruments or other issuances?

The primary and binding legal instrument is ST/SGB/2009/10, to be read together with the Guidelines made thereunder. It is not for the decision-makers to operate outside the strict terms of the primary legal instrument by explicit or tacit agreement to adopt a rule of practice or procedure that is not in strict compliance with ST/SGB/2009/10 and its guidance. Above all, those making recommendations or decisions must be guided by the Organization¡¯s policies as reflected in properly promulgated administrative...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the refusal by the former Executive Director to open an investigation into all the allegations raised violated ST/SGB/2008/5. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration has a degree of discretion as to how to conduct a review and assessment of a complaint and may decide whether to undertake a fact-finding investigation into all or some of the allegations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the former Executive Director did not comply with ST/SGB/2008/5 by hiring two consultants from outside the Organisation to conduct the investigation. Under ST/SGB/2008/5...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the motion for execution of judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-359. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it had been provided with information from the Secretary-General that all six members of Dalgaard et al. had either resigned, retired or transferred from ICTY prior to the issuance of the impugned decision. In light of this information, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of them could rightfully claim that they were entitled to moral damages as a result of their rights being violated by the impugned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that the course of action taken by the Secretary-General, in deciding that Dalgaard et al. were...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by Ms Flores requesting an increase in compensation and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in either determining that there were procedural violations that warranted rescission of the separation decision or in its determination that Ms Flores was not entitled to reinstatement (justifying a material award) as her contract was due to expire shortly after receipt of the dismissal letter. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms Flores was not informed prior to the interview what the allegations were. Noting that the records indicated that Ms Flores...

On the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants¡¯ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that: ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied the jurisprudence of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in the definition of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant¡¯s candidature full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the order rescinding the decision to transfer the Appellant and the moral damages award. On the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT unduly fettered its discretion to award compensation in lieu of specific performance, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, absent any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings, which were not evident, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT would not interfere with the discretion vested in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to decide on remedy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in all of the circumstances of the case, it was not persuaded by the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2013/035 and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/004. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the sanction imposed on Mr Cobarrubias was not unreasonable, absurd or disproportionate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was a reasonable exercise of the Administration¡¯s broad discretion in disciplinary matters, with which it would not lightly interfere. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the sanction disproportionate and in substituting its opinion for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the nature of the contested decision before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not entirely clear. On the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on this point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to deal with the Appellant¡¯s claim of harassment and discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for execution. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-221. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Simmons¡¯ contentions were not sustained. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for execution.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decision to suspend him without pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was alert to the injury which the prolonged delay caused the Appellant. On the Appellant¡¯s complaint that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not address his complaint regarding the deduction by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA from his personal Provident Fund contributions upon his dismissal, apparently, to recoup an overpayment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the complaint and the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact on the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT when it determined these...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the consolidated appeals of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/178 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/041. The Appellant had filed Motions to Withdraw and Strike both of his appeals on the ground that mediation was successful and all claims/disputes were settled between the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Appellant¡¯s motions and directed the Registrar to close ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case Nos. 2014-589 and 2014-621.