Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the possible error in the assessment of the facts by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no bearing on the outcome of the case, the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal could not be received.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that although an Ivorian Court judgment, finding the staff member guilty of fraud, had not been cited in the sanction letter, this was inconsequential because it was clear from the record that he had been aware of the judgment when he applied for the position and completed the PHP specifying ¡°no¡± to the question whether he had ¡°ever been indicted, fined or imprisoned for the violation of...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the staff member¡¯s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to uphold a conduct befitting her status as senior international civil servant. The Applicant, as a senior manager, was conferred a duty of care to promote a ¡°harmonious work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, offence and any form of prohibited conduct¡± as per ST/SGB/2008/5, which she failed to do. The Applicant¡¯s actions, as established by the facts, constituted harassment and abuse of authority under ST/SGB/2008/5 and amounted to misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the contested decision was lawful on the basis that the selected candidate had more experience than the Applicant and was therefore appropriately ranked the strongest candidate. Based on the documented record and the recommendation of the Hiring Manager, the Executive Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-Habitat lawfully selected the candidate best suited for the functions of the position, taking into account the Organization¡¯s gender targets. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration had shown that the applicable procedure was followed and that the Applicant¡¯s candidacy was...

With reference to the relevant legal framework, no matter what status is given to the Applicant¡¯s previous and/or current employment with the IOM in the context of the ASHI scheme, at the relevant time of applying for ASHI, the Applicant was not within a time period of 31 days before or after separation when an application for ASHI must be submitted.

Accordingly, even if the terms of the contested decision were misleading, the Applicant had no right to be enrolled in the ASHI scheme when he applied for it.

There is indeed uncertainty and possibly also disagreement regarding various material facts of the case. Accordingly, the case may not be adjudicated on the basis of a summary judgment.

The part of the present case concerning IOM is not receivable under the legal doctrine of lis pendens.

With regard to the HLIS decision, the Applicant refers to his request for management evaluation of 4 November 2022. As the application in the present case is filed after this date, this part of the application is therefore, from this perspective, now receivable under staff rule 11.2