Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member filed an appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT arguing that she did not only challenge the withholding of her salary increment, but she also challenged the reasons behind the administrative decision. She claimed the JAB did not review whether there were improper motives behind the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims relating to the salary increment were indisputably moot. She obtained the relief she had originally sought, and accordingly her appeal no longer presented an existing or live controversy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that any judicial examination of the reasons...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

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 was not able to detect any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, which is in accord with the consistent jurisprudence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the challenge to the decision by the Secretary-General not to waive Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s immunity was not receivable on the ground that it was an executive/political decision is incorrect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications not receivable, but for other reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Dolgopolov¡¯s applications were not receivable, because he did not refer the impugned decision regarding his request to sue the Ukrainian Ambassador to management evaluation, and the decision in respect of G-4 visa restrictions imposed by the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Russo-Got¡¯s application against the abolition of his post was not receivable, as he had failed to make a request for management evaluation within time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly dismissed his application against the non-renewal of his FTA because he had received notice of the date of the non-renewal, there was no express promise to renew, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS was not obliged to find him an alternative post.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation of the totality of the evidence on the record was reasonable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that Mr Russo-Got was Candidate A for the P-3 test and Candidate F for the P-4 test and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS had submitted contemporaneous documentation showing that he was not recommended because he had failed the written assessment for the two tests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decisions in accordance with the applicable law.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the recruitment exercise was the same and the cancellation of RFR 104637 was just a preparatory step of the selection process because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ignored the difference in the requirements and in the legal framework applicable to those very distinctive ways of contracting and in which each of these contracts is deployed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also erred in fact when it found that certain Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedents were applicable to the present case because the facts in the present case are not materially identical to those in the cited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedents.

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and by which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got¡¯s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.