Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by requesting management evaluation of the negative outcome of the reclassification process, the staff member breached procedural prerequisites. Instead, he should have appealed the contested decision as laid down in Sections 5 and 6 of ST/AI/1998/9 (System for the classification of posts). As the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it could not consider his submissions and additional evidence concerning the merits of the case. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the staff member¡¯s request for compensation in light of its decision to affirm the impugned...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact...

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 considered three appeals by the applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

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...

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant¡¯s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that since the Appellant¡¯s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant¡¯s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...