Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered all arguments made on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the Approving Authority¡¯s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both of the Appellant¡¯s cases in their judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to close the cases arising from the Appellant¡¯s complaints was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was justified based on careful consideration of the Appellant¡¯s arguments and evidence gathered during the investigation. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the characterization of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment as a disciplinary measure tainted the process to such a significant degree that it rendered the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was uncontested that the Respondent had a fixed-term appointment and emphasized that there is no expectancy of renewal of fixed-term appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Respondent could not rely on general statements to assume that her contract would be renewed and that she was even encouraged to apply for positions that would be published in the coming weeks. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that there was no illegality or abuse in the decision to abolish the Respondent¡¯s post and to not renew her fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding and held that ¡°the nature of the decision, the legal framework under which the decision was made, and the consequences of the decision¡± all support the conclusion that the Administration¡¯s response to a request for management evaluation is not a reviewable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the response to a request for management evaluation is an opportunity for the Administration to resolve a staff member¡¯s grievance without litigation and not a fresh decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the evidence showed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.