Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General¡¯s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT firstly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found because...

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.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the non-extension of Mr Houenou¡¯s temporary appointment was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the mission¡¯s budgetary situation.

The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed and found that the reason Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...