Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, challenging Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application, as it related to the second contested decision, was filed on time and was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Secretary-General, that the official holiday at the New York Registry on 5 September 2016 is irrelevant for the determination of the timeliness of the individual¡¯s filing before the Nairobi Registry. Although the case was later transferred to New York, on 6 September 2016, this case was still recorded as pending before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Nairobi and the filing of all documents in that month was expected to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the applicable procedural requirements were followed, and the evidence did not supersede the presumption of regularity of the administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Appellant was afforded full and fair consideration and that he failed to establish any bias by the members of the panel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant forewent the required procedures for filing complaints of discrimination and failed to provide evidence that he was the target of the restructuring exercise or that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also noted that the review of the Appellant¡¯s performance assessments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official¡¯s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation¡¯s...

With respect to the Appellant¡¯s first claim, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision and noted that it is well-settled jurisprudence that an international Organisation necessarily has the power to restructure some or all of its departments or units, including the abolition of posts, the creation of new posts and the redeployment of staff. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT will not interfere with a genuine Organisational restructuring even though it may have resulted in the loss of employment of staff. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in that the decision to abolish Appellant¡¯s post was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the staff member¡¯s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts ¡°as found by the Dispute Tribunal¡±, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Secretary-General...

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604 (Ocokoru). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in judgment 2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-604, it did not make any order affecting the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the execution of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member¡¯s application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute...