Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence with regards to the nature of the redress granted to Ms Farr. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering that Ms Farr¡¯s name be placed on the roster because the legal consequence of the annulment of the selection procedure was restricted to placing the staff member in the same position she would have been in if the illegality had not occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, to afford Ms Farr proper redress, she should be allowed to take a second oral exam in French, with adequate assurances concerning the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding and held that, pursuant to the Inter-Organisation Agreement (which states that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation), the staff member¡¯s service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA should have been counted as service with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and that he thus met the service criterion for eligibility. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and remanded the case to the Administration to decide whether the staff member met the remaining criteria for conversion to a permanent appointment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-171. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was time-barred...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-154. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Basenko¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reference made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to the precedent in Gabaldon (judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-139) could not be regarded as a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was unable to see any valid ground for revision within the purview of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable on the basis that the Appellant was not challenging the new scheme for education grant introduced by the General Assembly, but rather the manner in which it was implemented in her specific case and the way in which the Secretary-General interpreted General Assembly Resolution 70/244. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that the Appellant did not have an acquired right to all of the previous education benefits she had enjoyed. On the question of the Appellant¡¯s access to a discretionary consideration of her claims on exceptional grounds, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

While the change of the country of home leave referred to in ST/AI/367 is stated to be permanent, it is not unconditional, but subject to the Secretary-General being satisfied of the three specified conditions, which include its consistency with the purposes and intent of staff regulation 5.3.Former staff rule 105.3 gave internationally recruited staff the opportunity to take home leave to visit their home country at Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ expense. Providing staff rule 105.3 (d) that the country of home leave shall be the country of the staff member¡¯s nationality, the logical corollary is that if a staff member...

The recommendations made by the Chief, SSS, are not administrative decisions that can be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in accordance with article 2 of its Statute. They are not administrative decisions within the ruling in Andronov by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the recent jurisprudence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The contested recommendations are preliminary steps in the selection process in accordance with ST/AI/1999/8. The applicant had the right to contest his non-selection for a post but not a preliminary step in such process which is not an administrative decision. Outcome: The application was rejected.

Since the applicant was not a staff member of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV when the contested decision was taken, the decision to bar him from access to the VIC did not affect and could not have affected his terms of appointment. The decision could be contested neither before the JAB nor before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.