Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

The only issue on appeal is whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment¡¯s orders on in-lieu compensation and compensation for moral harm are free of error. In the present case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT took into account the specific circumstances of the case, in particular the seniority of Mr. Yavuz, the type of appointment held, and the chance of renewal of the appointment in a position still required by the Administration and set an in-lieu compensation of three months. Mr. Yavuz complains that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should also have considered the nature of the irregularity and the seriousness of the breaches of his rights and the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the non-renewal decision unlawful because the Secretary-General did not show that it was motivated by a lack of funds. Although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed several errors of law, its main finding is not put into doubt by the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Therefore, in this respect, the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal cannot succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's finding that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat silently accepted Mr. El-Awar's condition of reassignment is erroneous. A reassignment is an administrative decision, a unilateral act imposed on the staff member by the Administration. It is not a contract which can be bargained or...

The Tribunal found it most unlikely that¡ªin the hypothesis that the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment had not already been terminated on 9 May 2018¡ªit would have been renewed from 31 August (the expiry date of his fixed-term appointment) to 31 December 2019 (the last date before the abolition of his post). The Tribunal found that despite the Applicant¡¯s skills and credentials, it would be most unlikely that he would have been transferred to the post of the Director of Governance Services.

The Applicant was awarded the full salary (net base salary plus post adjustment) he would have obtained...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing via teleconference, noting that his brief of appeal was sufficient and did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to consider his arguments regarding the former service on a ¡°specialist¡± post was without merit, noting that this issue was considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has the authority to amend any regulation or rule of the Organisation, so as to apply the ¡°case by case¡± consideration to ¡°specialist¡± staff members during promotion sessions to...

In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was within Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it decided to give Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR the option to either pay compensation in lieu of reinstating the Appellant or quash the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Article 10. 5(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute was not applicable as the Appellant was serving under an indefinite appointment governed by Rule 104. 12(c) of the Staff Rules (100 Series). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed that the contested administrative decision did not concern his appointment, promotion, or termination but his placement between assignments. For this reason, Article 10.5(a)...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...