Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The crucial question on appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s discretion to reject the applicant¡¯s request for referral. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal approach was correct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to refer the ED of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant¡¯s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

i. The Tribunal noted that based on the evidence on the record, the Applicant was never a staff member of ECA, DOS or any other entity of the United Nations. Accordingly, he had no locus standi before the Tribunal. The application was thus dismissed.

ii. The Tribunal also held that the application was barred by res judicata. It was recalled that the Tribunal had previously rejected an application by the Applicant contesting the same claims he raised in the present application. In Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2022/078, the Tribunal had found that the Applicant was not a staff member and had no legal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant¡¯s son has a disability, he was entitled to receive benefits only under the special education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/2 (Special education grant and related benefit for children with a disability) and not under the regular education grant scheme ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 (Education grant and related benefits). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that since the Appellant¡¯s son was not boarding during the academic year of 2019-2020 and continued to reside at the parental home, the Appellant was not eligible for any boarding allowance under ST/AI/2018/2.

Even if ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1 was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the contested decision not to initiate an investigation due to the resignation of her SRO was lawful as part of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Though the term ¡°preliminary assessment¡± in ST/SGB/2019/8 was not specifically used in the contested decision, it was clear that Ms. Fosse¡¯s complaint was preliminarily assessed before the decision was made that no investigation would be undertaken. While the previous Bulletin (ST/SGB/2008/5) may have been in force when she lodged her complaint and when it was the subject of a preliminary...

As to the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its task was to review whether any or all the fees, for which Mr. Awad requested reimbursement, constituted admissible expenses, either as ¡°enrolment-related fees¡± or ¡°tuition¡±. The wording of Section 3.1(a) and (b) of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, their systematic context with other provisions of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the goals of the General Assembly and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s recent jurisprudence should be taken into account. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ¡°plain meaning of enrollment¡±. While the word ¡°enrolment¡±, in...

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

Mr. Farhadi appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that ¡°[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously¡± under the rubric ¡°Reference check¡± was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in...

In the current case, the Applicant only filed his request for management evaluation one calendar day before his application to the Dispute Tribunal and is yet to receive a response by management to his submission. Under staff rule 11.2(d), the Administration has 30 days to provide the management evaluation if the staff member is stationed in New York and 45 days if s/he is stationed outside New York. In the circumstances, the Applicant¡¯s application is premature and therefore not receivable.