Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF in the administration of its staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically whether General Assembly resolutions 63/250 and 65/247 apply to staff in the General Service category, and whether Staff Rules 4.14(b) and 4.16(b) apply to staff at the General Service level. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that Paragraph 23 of section II of General Assembly resolution 63/250 and Paragraph 50 of section VI of General Assembly resolution 65/247 include two categories of staff members in the United Nations Secretariat who have the right to be granted a continuing appointment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 24(a) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.