Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

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. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reliance of the Administration on disciplinary/administrative measures to deny the staff member¡¯s conversion to permanent appointment did not give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a carte blanche to go behind the agreed sanctions imposed on 20 April 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s competence or jurisdiction to embark on an inquiry into whether the 2009 disciplinary sanctions were lawfully imposed or otherwise...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the allegation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA in tranche 2 list. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Judicial Review is a supervisory jurisdiction. It is not a jurisdiction which a tribunal may exercise over itself. The former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were and are creatures of statute. Each has the ability, inherent to all courts and tribunals, to imply powers to prevent abuses of process; however, the jurisdiction of each tribunal is limited by the provisions of its respective empowering statute. In the absence of specific jurisdiction conferred on a statutory tribunal by statute, the power to exercise a supervisory jurisdiction such as judicial review cannot be implied. This conclusion is...

Reassignments: Staff regulation 1.2 grants broad discretion to the Secretary-General in making reassignment decisions. However, such discretionary power is not unfettered: it is subject to respect for due process, and the absence of bias, discrimination, arbitrariness, or other extraneous motivations. While section 2.4 ST/AI/2006/3.Rev.1 envisages only lateral transfers to vacant posts, it does not preclude other kinds of transfer to be lawfully made. The decision contested in the present case does not contravene the said section 2.4, but falls beyond this provision¡¯s purview and, therefore...