Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also determined that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui¡¯s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an ¡°administrative decision¡± and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that the contested decision was contained in a letter dated 21 May 2024. On 30 May 2024, the Chief of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Field Office (¡°CFO¡±) met with the Applicant to hand-deliver the sanction letter to the Applicant, but the Applicant did not sign a declaration of receipt. As a result, the CFO noted, ¡°Document read to staff on 30/05/2024, who then refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter¡±. On the same day, the Administrative Law Unit sent the contested decision to the Applicant via email.

The Tribunal further observed that the Applicant...

The Tribunal held:

1. The Applicant repeatedly engaged in attempts of corruption by requesting money from at least six refugees in exchange for promising Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR services that should have been provided without charge. As a consequence, the decision to dismiss the Applicant was lawful.

2. The facts which the Applicant was accused of were proved in a consistent and unequivocal manner, and the Respondent fulfilled his burden to prove that the Applicant took bribes from some refuges, or at least that she asked for them.

3. The disciplinary measure was not based solely on anonymous statements...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The Applicant's continued violations over a year and one-half, despite a prior reprimand, numerous warnings, a clear directive, and a new investigation, clearly showed that he willfully disregarded the applicable rules prohibiting his wife from living with him in a non-family duty station.

b. By the preponderance of the evidence, the Tribunal was persuaded that the Applicant threatened another staff member, as was found by the Organization.

c.The Applicant¡¯s threats and repeated violation of the housing rules amounted to serious misconduct.

d. The record was...

The Tribunal held that:

a. The facts upon which the Applicant was reproached do not amount to misconduct;

b. it was not part of the Applicant¡¯s remit to verify where the staff members were located;

c. The issue regarding the Applicant¡¯s factual knowledge of where the other staff member resided during the period in question was based on conjecture;

d. The Respondent had not adduced any evidence to indicate that the Applicant always and effectively knew where the other staff member was residing in each moment, or had any knowledge of that staff member's relationship with the owners of any of...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.