Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

In the present case, the Applicant has not identified a reviewable administrative decision and there is no indication that he filed a request for management evaluation before submitting the application.

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected Mr...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2022/022.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

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

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found problematic the fact that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT but which it did not accept.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the contested selection decision was lawful as the Administration appropriately exercised its discretion in selecting the selected candidate.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...