Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address OAI¡¯s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetje¡¯s severance from service. The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation report¡¯s evidence of them.

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Banaj against Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/030.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a reallocation of duties pending the outcome of an investigation as occurred in Ms. Banaj¡¯s case is permissible as an interim measure in such circumstances, but not as the exercise of the general power of assignments available to the Secretary-General in Staff Regulation 1.2(c) [¡­] But, under Staff Rule 10.4 and the Framework relating to interim measures pending an investigation and disciplinary process, there is an alternative measure of reallocation of duties available in such cases where the...

The Appeals Tribunal¡¯s first finding is that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its holding that Section 17(d) of the Repatriation Policy is not in conflict with Staff Rule 3.19 (g) and, thus, the two sets of provisions fall to be read together coherently.

We also find correct the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that the application of Section 17(d) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP Repatriation Policy is not limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff members as it seeks to reconcile payments made to staff members within the United Nations system, irrespectively of the fact that the spouse is a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP staff member too or not, avoiding in any case to duplicate...