Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT endorsed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the decision to issue a press release in response to allegations that OHCHR had endangered the lives of Chinese human rights defenders who attended the Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2013 fell within the discretion of the Organization and was a managerial prerogative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the specific part of it which concerned the issue of the provision of names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government fell outside the scope of its judicial review due to the general nature of its content and to the fact that it embodied a...

The Applicant does not contest the fact that he became aware of the contested decision at the latest on 31 December 2021, when he separated from service, and that he requested management evaluation of the contested decision on 15 April 2023, more than a year after the statutory deadline.

To justify the delayed submission of his request for management evaluation, the applicant points to his medical condition. The Tribunal is however not competent to ¡°suspend or waive deadlines for management evaluation¡± (art. 8.3 of its Statute).

Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s request...

The Applicant erred in her assessment that OIOS is not part of the Administration and that its decision does not constitute a final challengeable administrative decision. Indeed, OIOS is part of the Secretariat. It ¡°operates under the authority¡± of the Secretary-General, albeit its operational ¡°independence¡±. Accordingly, decisios made by OIOS can constitute, in fact, final administrative decision. The fact that the Applicant made two reports, namely one to OIOS and one to the Administration, did not create a duty on any other person or office to make a final decision, given that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-¨¤-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...

Whether the application is receivable in its entirety Although the Applicant questioned the legality of the threshold to qualify for a single parent allowance, contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6, it must be understood as part of his legal reasoning or arguments and cannot be considered as the ¡°contested decision¡± as suggested by the Respondent. Indeed, the Applicant does not claim in the abstract that the requirement contained in sec. 4.4 of ST/AI/2018/6 is unlawful but rather seeks to challenge the direct and individual application of the specific requirement to his case as it adversely...

The deadline for the Applicant¡¯s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant¡¯s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in assessing the damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.