Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Given the modest level of compensation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded to Ms. Malhotra and its non-payment since 20 November 2020, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded interest on the 3-month net base salary calculated at the US prime rate from 20 November 2020 to the date of payment.

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

By including a paragraph about the possibility for a re-entrant to restore his or her prior contributory service under certain conditions in the A/2 form for designation of the recipient of a residual settlement, the Fund discharged its obligation to notify re-entrants such as Mr Duflos. There was no duty on the part of the Pension Fund to provide further information or clarification in that regard in the absence of any request from Mr. Duflos for information or clarification.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, finding it not receivable. The Tribunal explained Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decisions on applications for suspension of action are not subject to appeal, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The Tribunal also noted that this case did not fall under the narrow exceptions when appeals against interlocutory orders are allowed, i.e. when it is alleged that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any excess of jurisdiction in the instant case and therefore deemed the appeal irreceivable.

The Tribunal acknowledges that the 120-day deadline for OIOS to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory. However, the Tribunal is of the view that a departure from this deadline has to be just. Given the circumstances of the case, even if the 120-day deadline to complete a retaliation investigation is not mandatory, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the delays and unjustified attempts to suspend or terminate the investigation in this case constitute an egregious violation of ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1. By not initiating its investigation in due course, OIOS rendered itself unable to...

The Tribunals¡¯ jurisprudence underscores that the key characteristic of an administrative decision is that it must produce adverse consequences for a staff member¡¯s employment contract or terms of appointment. Decisions that extend a contract, even on a short-term basis, are in the staff member¡¯s favour and do not adversely affect their rights. It is only after a report has been made and processed purusant to ST/SGB/2019/8 (Addressing discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, and abuse of authority) that its handling may be the subject matter of a case before the Tribunal. It...

The Tribunal concluded that the Application was not receivable because the contested decision was made on 21 May 2020 and the Applicant requested management evaluation on 25 October 2020, based on a later decision by MONUSCO dated on 8 October 2020. The Tribunal held that the 8 October 2020 email did not reset the time line for requesting management evaluation because it was a reiteration of the 21 May 2020 decision. The Tribunal recalled that the Appeals Tribunal held that ¡°the reiteration of an administrative decision does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timelines; rather...

The application was not receivable because the Applicant was contesting an MEU response, which is not an appealable administrative decision.

Regardless of how the Applicant may intend to define the contested decision, it is clear from the application and its supporting documents, as well as from the request for management evaluation, that the events in dispute date back to March and April 2019. The Applicant therefore missed the 60-day deadline to request management evaluation of the contested decision. The application not receivable ratione materiae.