Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member based in Geneva applied for the post in Suva, Fiji, and was offered the temporary appointment as a result. After many rounds of communications regarding the date of reporting for duty, the Administration informed him that his suggested date was not acceptable, and it was proceeding to contact the next candidate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the offer of appointment had specified that it was ¡°for an initial period effective as soon as possible to 31 December 2024¡±. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that by unconditionally accepting the offer of appointment, the staff member was in a quasi-contractual...

The former staff member was placed on Administrative Leave Without Pay (ALWOP) pending the conclusion of an investigation into him for misconduct. At the time that the decision-maker considered extending the ALWOP period, only a Draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Report was available.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously and definitively substituted its own determination of the facts for that of the Administration. It erroneously admitted after-the-fact independent forensic reports as relevant to the reliability of the evidence cited by OIOS, when these reports were not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the revision procedure assumes the existence of a prior judgment and governs only the reopening of that judgment upon discovery of qualifying facts. It does not create a mechanism to revive an expired right to challenge an administrative decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in dismissing the application for revision of judgment as not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances for waiver of the applicable time limits exist only where there is an ¡°absolute impossibility¡± to act within the prescribed period, and such impossibility is not demonstrated...

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and ¡°non decisions¡± concerning the processing of her claim.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and...

On 19 May 2024, the staff member returned to his duty station from Rest and Recuperation (R&R). The period of qualifying service for the R&R entitlement was 28 days and he was eligible for another R&R from 16 June 2024. He left the duty station on 13 June 2024. He requested R&R for 23-27 June 2024.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had left the duty station with the expectation that the following days of 14-22 June 2024, which constituted a combination of non-working days, United Nations Official holidays, and annual leave, would not interrupt or suspend, but contribute to his qualifying...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. He submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that by denying the staff member¡¯s request for referral to mediation the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had lawfully exercised its case management discretion and had not committed an error of procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine...

The staff member, who was serving in Khartoum, was evacuated when civil war erupted in Sudan. She submitted a claim for compensation for loss of personal effects attributable to service.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred, such as to affect the decision of the case, when it rejected the parties¡¯ joint motion to refer their case to mediation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it identified the staff member¡¯s argument as a challenge to the policy of the Organization but had erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to incidentally examine the consistency of...

The staff member, who served as an Associate Human Rights Officer at the P-2 level, applied for the Human Rights Officer post at the P-4 level. The hiring manager conducted a desk review of the job applications and, as a result, decided not to shortlist the staff member. Accordingly, his candidacy did not proceed in the selection process.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had found it impossible to determine whether the document produced by the Secretary-General, reflecting the Administration¡¯s assessment of the staff member¡¯s skills, experience and suitability, constituted a ¡°contemporaneous...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested management evaluation 64 days after he was informed of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the staff member¡¯s arguments that the delay in requesting management evaluation had been minimal or that his permanent incapacity constituted a force majeure which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was obliged to consider.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding the application not receivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its prior Judgment the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...