Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable, the ICSC decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar¡¯s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was erroneous. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and, consequently, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.