±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that applications to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the application was moot and thus, not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to dispose of the issue of compensation as part of another case was a case management decision well within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and caused no injustice to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that it should never have been called on to review the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision since the fact that the application was moot was obvious. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had manifestly abused the appeals process by filing an appeal that was blatantly frivolous. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT opined that the...

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 an application for execution of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-132 filed by Ms Frechon. Ms Frechon sought execution of what she maintained was the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, namely, that the Secretary-General should pay her two years¡¯ salary in lieu of an effective reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the order in respect of which Ms Frechon sought execution was not an order which was affirmed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Frechon could seek execution of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s order to the extent that the Secretary-General failed to reinstate her for the purpose of the correct procedure, thereby entitling her to the remedy...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for...

±¬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...

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...

The Tribunal finds that, pursuant to art. 2.1(a) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the Applicant¡¯s claim is receivable. Meaning of an ¡°agreement reached through mediation¡± - A plain reading of the full text of art. 8.2 requires that a mediated agreement must be reduced in to writing and signed by the parties as otherwise it would be inconceivable how the implementation of such an agreement would be enforced as provided for in the latter part of art. 8.2 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal.

Classification - There is no evidence that the procedure for a re-classification of the Broadcast Technology Officer (¡°BTO¡±) post encumbered by the Applicant in ±¬ÁÏÍøMIS was ever undertaken. As already pointed out, the Chief of radio took it upon herself to re-write the competencies of the post to which in January 2010, the Applicant had been competitively recruited before she came on board as Chief of radio, perhaps in order to make the Applicant who was encumbering the post, less eligible.

Delegated Authority - The termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority...

The administrative decision that was being challenged was made on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (¡°ABCC¡±). The Tribunal found that the ABCC was correct in rejecting the Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation for injuries suffered from the car accident.

The Applicant was denied eligibility for conversion because in 2006 she had a break in service of eight days, which interrupted the continuity of her service. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the main issue in the case was whether the break in service in 2006 can be taken into account for the purpose of conversion to a permanent appointment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the break in service that took place in 2006 shall not be taken into account because the Applicant was induced into taking it, without proper legal basis, as a condition for her employment in New York. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT ordered rescission of the decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found, in its earlier Judgment McCloskey ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/199 that only the decision pertaining to the Statement of Tax Settlement for the year 2010 was receivable. Following the Tribunal¡¯s Judgments in McCloskey ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/199 and Johnson ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-240, the Respondent no longer contests the illegality of the decision to use the Applicant¡¯s wife¡¯s foreign income tax credit. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor...

By deciding not to undertake the written test for the two posts, the Applicant removed the hiring manager¡¯s capacity to effectively compare her skills to that of the other candidates. By not taking the written test the Applicant effectively withdrew from the entire approved selection process and she could no longer enjoy the right of being evaluated appropriately, and against the pre-approved criteria. Consequently, none of the Applicant¡¯s rights were breached during the selection exercise for these posts. The Applicant claims that she should have been selected for either of the two posts even...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that she was evaluated fairly with respect to both the written test and the interview, which was based on appropriate criteria. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the selection process was not biased against the Applicant and that consideration of her candidacy was not marred by significant errors or procedural violations that would vitiate the selection process or result in a failure to give her proper consideration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the reason provided by the Administration for the non-renewal was not supported by the facts and that the decision was indeed based on extraneous factors. The decision of the ITC Senior Management Committee to merge several existing programs was never really implemented. A generic P-4 post was advertised in early 2012 under the new program, and funded through budget lines already available when the decision not to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment was taken. The available evidence shows that the real motive of the decision was the fact that the Applicant¡¯s supervisor...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office¡¯s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from ±¬ÁÏÍøDP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent¡¯s argument that this was a case of non-renewal and found that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term contract was terminated on the grounds of alleged unsatisfactory performance for the period of 2007 to 2010. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the performance evaluation report (¡°PER¡±) for 2010 cannot be lawfully relied upon to justify the finding of unsatisfactory performance as the Applicant had no opportunity of a meaningful rebuttal. Therefore, the termination of the Applicant¡¯s contract on the basis of poor performance was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also found that no proper...

With respect to the first contested selection process, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant was properly considered for it but was determined as not suitable. With respect to the second contested selection process, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Respondent¡¯s explanation that the post was not filled due to reasons not related to the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was credible. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application.

Before the Tribunal, following its Judgment Johnson ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/144, as confirmed by the Appeals Tribunal in Johnson 2012-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-240, the Respondent does not contest anymore that the Applicant by using her foreign tax credit paid as a matter of fact part of the taxes due. The Respondent nevertheless refuses to reimburse to the Applicant the staff assessment deductions made, which the latter contests. The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant and orders the Administration to carry out a new calculation of the 2010 staff assessment deductions that ought to be reimbursed to her.