Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the central tenet of the staff member¡¯s case, which was that he held the necessary academic qualifications for the role, but that the selected candidate did not. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the educational specifications in the job vacancy announcement were a minimum threshold, but not the determining factor in the selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the staff member and the selected candidate met the threshold academic qualifications, even though they obtained them by different means. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the claim that the ITLOS should not have taken into account that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in this case, the JAB made not a decision, but rather a recommendation to the Registrar of the ITLOS, who in turn, purported to make the decision about Mr. Savadogo¡¯s appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recognized that the ITLOS changed and consolidated the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules so that the JAB now makes decisions (from which appeals may be brought to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) rather than, as occurred in this case, recommendations to the Registrar of the ITLOS, which the Registrar may or may not accept. However, this amendment came too late for the parties in this case. Thus, the original...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB, holding that the ITLOS was not obliged to conclude the recruitment exercise once it had begun, and that it had the authority to cancel the process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned by the change to the recruitment procedure during the course of the contested recruitment, but could not discern how this affected Mr. Savadogo¡¯s candidacy. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the ITLOS JAB that Mr. Savadogo¡¯s allegations of bias against the Registrar in the recruitment were countered by the fact that the President of ITLOS made the significant decisions in the recruitment...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to conduct a fresh investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

The matter remanded to the Joint Appeals Board of ITLOS to be reconsidered and decided by a neutral first instance process