Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was an error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s methodology of fixing...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/124 and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless observed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rightfully refused to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

The application is denied.

The issue in this case is whether EG and SEG consist of two independent benefits that can be granted in combination.

Pursuant to sec. 6.1(a) of ST/AI/2018/2/Amend.1, the overall maximum amount of SEG shall be equal to the upper limit of the top bracket of the global sliding scale applicable to the education grant scheme. The law does not allow an interpretation where EG and SEG can be ¡°stacked¡±.

Indeed, the difference between EG and SEG is in the percentages of reimbursement that eligible staff members are entitled to receive. This difference in reimbursement percentage addresses the...