Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the former staff member¡¯s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

The...

The Appeals Tribunal granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals, dismissed Mr. Heurtematte¡¯s appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s largely speculative grounds for concluding ulterior motives by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women were not justified, especially when compared to the compelling contemporaneous reasons for the abolition, i.e. the fact that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women no longer had a physical office in Panama, that the staff was working from home, and that the motor vehicles had been sold. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT went too far in reaching its own speculative conclusions why and how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her claim was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...