Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a fait appel de la pr¨¦misse que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a mal substitu¨¦ sa d¨¦cision ¨¤ celle de l'administration. Inscrit en d¨¦saccord et a constat¨¦ que la raison pour laquelle Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD a annul¨¦ la d¨¦cision ¨¦tait parce qu'elle souffrait d'incoh¨¦rence, c'est-¨¤-dire que les raisons pr¨¦vues pour distinguer le membre du personnel avec une extension plus courte de son ALE ont chang¨¦ au fil du temps et n'¨¦taient pas soutenues par les faits. Unat a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que les raisons ex post facto de s¨¦lectionner l'appelante transversale plut?t que l'un des autres membres du personnel fournissent une...

Unat a convenu avec Unrwa dt que l'agence est emp¨ºch¨¦e de r¨¦visiter la d¨¦termination de savoir si la blessure ¨¦tait li¨¦e au service, ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que l'agence avait fait plusieurs repr¨¦sentations au membre du personnel pendant une p¨¦riode de temps et sur laquelle le membre du personnel s'¨¦tait appuy¨¦. Cependant, un non-¨¦tat n'¨¦tait pas d'accord que l'octroi de remboursement des frais m¨¦dicaux en Syrie signifierait automatiquement que l'agence paierait ¨¦galement de telles d¨¦penses en Allemagne. Conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 106.4 (3) du personnel de la r¨¦gion, le membre du personnel avait besoin d...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the charge of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Modey-Ebi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issues in the appeal were entirely factual, most of which were resolved on the evidentiary record which in most respects established a pattern of misconduct justifying dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while some of the proven allegations against Ms. Modey-Ebi were less serious than others, cumulatively they revealed a pattern of unethical conduct indicating that Ms. Modey-Ebi was not suited for the senior position she held. Her behaviour revealed a lack of propriety and integrity and her behaviour was inconsistent with her duties under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not fall within the exceptional category of participants who exercised their election for a deferred retirement benefit before 1 April 1997 and were therefore entitled to restore their prior contributory service, as the Appellant exercised her election in September 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was not entitled to restore her prior contributory service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint that she did not have access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations was unconvincing, given, inter alia, the availability of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations and Rules on the website. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the source of the Secretary-General¡¯s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

The staff member filed an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing that she did not only challenge the withholding of her salary increment, but she also challenged the reasons behind the administrative decision. She claimed the JAB did not review whether there were improper motives behind the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims relating to the salary increment were indisputably moot. She obtained the relief she had originally sought, and accordingly her appeal no longer presented an existing or live controversy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that any judicial examination of the reasons...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted the staff member¡¯s cross-appeal, in part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly took into account several facts that were relevant in determining whether there had been sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerability or trust. The Tribunal reasoned the burden on the Administration was to show on clear and convincing evidence that the staff member¡¯s conduct fell in one of the following five categories: (i) he abused a position of vulnerability for sexual purposes; (ii) he abused a position of differential power for sexual purposes; (iii) he...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found that the reason Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou¡¯s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission¡¯s budgetary situation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that, in actuality, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT erred in making an award of interest, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are final and without appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this attempt to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...