±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld such conclusions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were errors by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

Ms. Pakkala filed an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision to impose the administrative measures on Ms. Pakkala was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion.

The letter of the Director, DHR clearly set out the rationale for imposing the administrative measures, i.e. that the investigative process had surfaced a pattern of behavior exhibited by Ms. Pakkala over time which was cause for concern and justified the administrative measures. While the Director, DHR found the evidence of alleged harassment was not clear and convincing, in her opinion there were reasonable grounds to believe...

The only issue on appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment¡¯s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

The essential question for determination on appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the alleged misconduct of creating a hostile work environment and giving of gifts was proved in accordance with the standard of clear and convincing evidence. In other words, did the evidence establish the alleged misconduct to a high degree of probability? At its essence, therefore, this case involves strongly contested disputes of fact about whether AAC conducted himself in a manner that was abusive and created a hostile working environment. The Administration says he did. AAC strongly denies it. Thus...

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.

It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and had no standing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

Mr. Beda appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Beda's motion seeking leave to file a rejoinder on grounds that there was no probative value to the rejoinder Mr. Beda sought to file, and there was nothing new in the Administration's answer that would require him to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal or rejoinder. Turning to the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had applied the correct legal standard in its Judgment - whether the facts had been established by clear and convincing evidence - and properly assessed the evidence and credibility of witness testimony, making the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish the facts underlying the allegations of misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT applied the appropriate legal standard, namely clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT heard the evidence of the complainant, other material witnesses, assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimony under oath before it, determined the probable facts and then rendered a decision as to whether the onus to establish the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an analysis of the e-mail and other correspondence between ±¬ÁÏÍøDP and the Appellant indicated that she could not have been led to believe that her home leave request for January 2020 would be granted. She had been advised that a staff member was entitled to home leave only if the staff member¡¯s contract was anticipated to continue for more than six months after the return from home leave, yet Appellant¡¯s continuing engagement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDP was unknown, and her current contract end date was June 30, 2020. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDP complied with its obligations to consider and decide the...

Mr. Lucchini and the Secretary-General disagreed on whether ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation for moral damages, in addition to increasing the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 months to 24 months, or ordered payment of the increased amount of compensation in lieu (of two years¡¯ net base salary) but did not include the original award of compensation for moral harm that had been ordered by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Lucchini filed an application for interpretation seeking confirmation of his view that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s ruling increased the amount of in lieu compensation from 10 to 24 months¡¯ net...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a ±¬ÁÏÍøDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and therefore ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms. Caucci¡¯s situation differed from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in Tran Nguyen (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/002) and therefore it was erroneous for the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to apply such jurisprudence to find that Ms. Caucci had a general service lien with MINUSMA during and after her service with DPO. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the rights of staff members on secondment under the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowance, which was at issue in Tran Nguyen...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...