Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Scope of judicial review In a remanded case, such as the instant one, the Applicant may not expand the scope of claims for remedies contained in her original application and, as such, the Tribunal will not consider her new claims or arguments unless they are essentially related to her original claim in the application. Whether and to what extent the Applicant is entitled to remedies The Appeals Tribunal found in Banaj 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1202 (see para. 1) that the temporary removal from the Applicant, and reassignment to others, of certain of her functions as Head of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵODC in Albania, was an unlawful...

The Applicant received the contested decision on 5 May 2021. If he wished to challenge his reassignment, he should have filed a management evaluation request by 4 July 2021 but did not do so until 30 November 2021. Thus, his applicaiton was found to not be receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Caucci¡¯s situation differed from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in Tran Nguyen (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/002) and therefore it was erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply such jurisprudence to find that Ms. Caucci had a general service lien with MINUSMA during and after her service with DPO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the rights of staff members on secondment under the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff among the Organizations applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowance, which was at issue in Tran Nguyen...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva¡¯s terms and conditions of...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its judgment, although Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT differed in its reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the question of compensation. On the issue of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal being time-barred, as raised by Mr. Kasyanov, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment on merits for the case was not a final judgment; while it made substantive findings, it left the issue of remedy to be resolved in the future. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on merits only became final when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the judgment on compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when the judgment on merits was appealed, a party could challenge the judgment on compensation and the judgment on...

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 Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...