Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to file a reply to the Respondent¡¯s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s second motion seeking leave to present additional ¡°information¡± which she claimed related to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ¡°generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, agreeing with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the Administration should have removed the offending minutes, written to all recipients of the minutes withdrawing the damaging allegations against Mr. Awe, and/or simply forwarded the fact-finding panel¡¯s report to the participants of the SMT meeting and recipients of the minutes. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reprimand in the offender¡¯s file and the private apology did not constitute appropriate relief for the restoration of Mr. Awe¡¯s reputation and career. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that any action was taken against Mr. Rutgers (managerial or disciplinary) could have only...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not committed an error of procedure by denying the Appellant an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT enjoys a wide margin of discretion in all matters relating to case management and there was no error in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with specific consideration of the following: Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the proceedings to be conducted in French; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s dismissal of objections to English translations in the application and other documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of its judgment before having the Secretary-General¡¯s reply...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings on the basis that exceptional circumstances were not demonstrated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s reasoning, fact-finding panels do not fall in the category of technical bodies under Staff Rule 11. 2(b), nor has the Secretary-General designated fact-finding panels established under ST/SGB/2008/5 as technical bodies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the request for management evaluation was a mandatory first step in the judicial process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not apply for management evaluation as required...