Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure gives Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not ¡°clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction¡± when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of ¡°appointment, promotion, or termination¡± excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no legal basis for the Administration to assert that Mr Muwambi was subject to the requirement of clearance by a central review body, constituted an error of law since such clearance was a requirement clearly established by the legal framework of the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the discontinuation since 30 June 2015 of the practice of temporarily reassigning staff affected by downsizing in a peacekeeping mission to allow them to apply for vacant positions, practice on which Mr Muwambi¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to contesting the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of three months¡¯ net base salary as compensation for damage to Ms Haroun¡¯s career prospects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error in law by awarding compensation for damage to career prospects on the basis of Ms Haroun¡¯s separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the separation from service was the sole ground for awarding compensation for damage to career prospects but that there was no evidence on the record with respect to the exact reasons for separating Ms Haroun from service and the circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make such findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...