Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the text of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could discern no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s computation of the applicable time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...