Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB¡¯s interpretation of Article 24 of the Regulations to the effect that the 2007 amendment to Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations only applies to staff members who prior to 2007 had been ineligible to restore previous contributory service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the amended Article 24 did not apply to the staff member as he had been eligible to restore previous contributory service but had failed to do so in a timely manner.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant¡¯s control. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no error in fact or in law was made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

In considering the Appellant¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-promotion during the 2004-2005 Annual Promotion Session as the issue was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding on the merits that the Appellant had not been subjected to harassment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was a proven record of considerable efforts deployed in order to resolve the Appellant¡¯s situation, involving the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR senior management at the highest level and that the High Commissioner personally met the Appellant and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it decided to give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with interest was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member¡¯s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member¡¯s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded the case to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dualeh was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than he had and he would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on his non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Bofill was not promoted as a result of the fact that the other candidates had scored higher than she had and she would not have been promoted even if the other candidates had not been promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedural irregularity had no impact on her non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the direct effect of an irregularity will only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance of promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should neither have rescinded the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an irregularity in promotion procedures could only result in the rescission of the decision not to promote a staff member when he or she would have had a significant chance for promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there must be a link between the irregularity and the non-promotion decision. Thus, where the irregularity has no impact on the status of a staff member because he or she had no foreseeable chance for promotion, he or she is not entitled to rescission or compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...