Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s decision could not simply be reversed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute authorizes Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to order suspension of a contested decision only ¡°during the pendency of the management evaluation¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded to Ms Harding for the loss of salary and other entitlements from the date of her dismissal to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment with interest was excessive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it must take into account that she received compensation on or around 18 February 2008 and it could not consider the loss of earnings as actual harm after that date when the non-reinstatement was known to the claimant and the offered compensation caused by that circumstance had already been paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a total of 2. 5 years¡¯ net...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to reject the Appellant¡¯s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member¡¯s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member¡¯s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded the case to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP have elapsed, and where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...