Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

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 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 considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while only final judgments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeding its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...