Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Having examined the evidence on record, the Tribunal identifies the following issues for determination:

Whether the Applicant is entitled to parental leave under staff rule 6.3

The Tribunal found that the Applicant, whose child was born on 2 May 2022, was entitled to four weeks of paternity leave or eight weeks of adoption leave under the 2018 Staff Rules and ST/AI/2005/2, which he exercised. He was not, as he contends, ¡°placed in a no-man¡¯s land between two [Administrative Instructions]¡±.

The fact that the Applicant requested and was exceptionally granted additional leave after 1 January 2023 is...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s interlocutory appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order as not receivable, finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

The Tribunal¡¯s decision to grant a suspension of action on such a decision would not have the effect of rescinding or reversing the contested decision as claimed by the Respondent, but only that of suspending temporarily, from the date of the Tribunal¡¯s decision and until such date as provided for in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT statute, the legal consequences of the contested decision. The Applicant claims that the decision was not taken by the Secretary-General despite the Respondent¡¯s claims to the contrary. The Respondent refused to comply with the Tribunal¡¯s orders to submit a signed confirmation from the...

At the time the Applicant submitted his application to the Tribunal, the Administration had already reviewed its initial decision to grant the Applicant a three-month extension and extended him for an additional nine-month period. The Tribunal determined that since the contested decision was de facto rescinded by the Administration before the application was filed with the Tribunal, the application is not receivable. Had the Administration rescinded its decision after the filing of the application, the application would have become moot during the proceedings and the Tribunal would have...

On 31 December 2010 the Tribunal granted suspension of action pending management evaluation, pursuant to Order No. 338 (NY/2010). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it was evident that the decision not to renew the Applicant was influenced by at least some improper considerations that, as a result, it was satisfied of the prima facie unlawfulness of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the situation held particular urgency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT further held that, given the criticisms made of the Applicant¡¯s performance, it was reasonable to conclude that if the contested decision was not suspended, irreparable harm to the Applicant...

The Tribunal found that the case was one of termination of mandate, rather than of abolition of post under the relevant rules; hence, the decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s permanent appointment was illegal. It further decided that even if one were to follow the Respondent¡¯s argument that it was post abolition, such abolition needed the approval of the Board of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICRI which had not been obtained. Finally, following the argument that it was post abolition, the Tribunal noted that the Administration clearly failed to comply with its obligation to make reasonable and good faith efforts under...