Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

On the matter of the deduction of 7,000 Euros paid to the Appellant¡¯s ex-wife from his final emoluments, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae, although for different reasons than those given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed his request for management evaluation outside of the time limit and that therefore his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was clear from the facts that the Appellant knew and had expressly accepted that this payment to his ex-wife would be deducted from his final...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have only received her application against the selection decision whilst the decision not to short-list the Appellant is examined as a part of the final non-selection decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective as the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, however it considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion to file an additional pleading in the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek leave from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to introduce additional evidence and neither adduced evidence that exceptional circumstances warranted it nor that it would serve the interests of justice or the efficient and expeditious resolution of the appeal. On the issue of execution of the 2016 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that any of the orders contained therein were not executed and therefore the application was not...

The Judges of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were not appointed by the IJC whose mandate was to identify suitable candidates for recommendation to the General Assembly. The Judges were elected by the General Assembly on 2 March 2009 and that process involved the participation of nearly 190 Member States of the United Nations. This guaranteed their independence. The Applicant¡¯s averment of lack of impartiality was based on the fact that the Judges of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were selected by the IJC. The Applicant made general accusations of potential bias but did not give any precision on how this bias on the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the Applicant had until 2 February 2009 to file an appeal before the Joint Appeals Board. However, the Applicant¡¯s appeal was dated 27 February 2009 and was not received by the Joint Appeals Board until 3 March 2009. The Applicant¡¯s Counsel did not present any exceptional circumstance that prevented him from filing an appeal within the time limits prescribed in the Staff Rules then in effect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the request was therefore irreceivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the application.

The former Staff Regulations provided that: ¡°For the purpose of these Regulations, the expressions ¡®United Nations Secretariat¡¯, ¡®staff member¡¯ or ¡®staff¡¯ shall refer to all staff members of the Secretariat [¡­].¡± Former staff rule 104.10 (a) prohibited the recruitment of the father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister of a staff member, except where another person equally well qualified could not be recruited. It results from the foregoing that candidates who have a family relationship with a staff member working for an entity part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Secretariat are precluded from recruitment to a...

The decision was illegal since the Applicant, as a 15-day mark candidate, had been found suitable and therefore, in application of Section 7.1 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Administration was precluded from considering and selecting 30-day mark candidates. The Administration is bound to strictly adhere to the unambiguous terms of an administrative instruction.The Administration has discretionary power to set down reasonable standards to determine if a candidate has ¡°working knowledge¡± of a certain language, which it did in the present case.The Administration, in its dealing with staff members, has to...