Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The lack of justifiable explanation on the part of the Respondent for the delay from December 2018 to June 2021 could only be attributed to lack of due care and diligence, transparency, accountability and good faith. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the delay was compensable.

The Applicant proved beyond a balance of probabilities that the mental and emotional harm suffered by the dependents was directly attributable to the Administration¡¯s negligent handling of the matter.

The claim of moral harm was sufficiently proved to the requisite standard.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact...

The Applicant did not seek a waiver of suspension of the deadline facing her, nor did she meet the deadline. For this reason, the application is not receivable ratione temporis as it is time-barred.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

It is within the discretion of the Applicant¡¯s SRO to make comments on her performance. ¡°[M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted¡±. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.

The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...

The Application being barred by res judicata, this case is dismissed as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in this case, the JAB made not a decision, but rather a recommendation to the Registrar of the ITLOS, who in turn, purported to make the decision about Mr. Savadogo¡¯s appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recognized that the ITLOS changed and consolidated the relevant Staff Regulations and Rules so that the JAB now makes decisions (from which appeals may be brought to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT) rather than, as occurred in this case, recommendations to the Registrar of the ITLOS, which the Registrar may or may not accept. However, this amendment came too late for the parties in this case. Thus, the original...

As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT might have repeated some or most of the Respondent¡¯s arguments and language in its judgment would not be sufficient to undermine the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s considerations or determinations.

Regarding the scope of the appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the remedy claimed in the appeal does not aim for the rescission of the reassignment, but the placement into a P-5 or D-1 post commensurate with the Appellant¡¯s skills, training, qualifications, and experience for which she has applied and which was not the subject of her initial application, the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...