Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As to the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its task was to review whether any or all the fees, for which Mr. Awad requested reimbursement, constituted admissible expenses, either as ¡°enrolment-related fees¡± or ¡°tuition¡±. The wording of Section 3.1(a) and (b) of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, their systematic context with other provisions of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the goals of the General Assembly and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s recent jurisprudence should be taken into account. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ¡°plain meaning of enrollment¡±. While the word ¡°enrolment¡±, in...

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s challenge of the decision to place a note on the Applicant¡¯s official status file and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision to not make a determination on whether or not the Applicant has committed misconduct is not receivable. The decsions haves no direct consequences on the terms and conditions of the Applicant¡¯s former appointment.

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

The Applicant was not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for the Post because, after she passed the G to N exam, she was offered a YPP placement, and refused that YPP placement. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant, a General Service staff who was no longer on the list of ¡°successful candidates¡± for the competitive examination, was therefore not eligible to apply for and participate in the selection process for positions in the Professional category, including the Post. The decision to exclude the Applicant from the selection procedure for the Post was therefore...

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

None of the documents submitted by the REspondent had the official or authoritative character of a budgetary and/or financial record to demonstrate how the Applicant¡¯s post was established and funded and¡ªby a subsequent exclusion¡ªalso showed that the post had been abolished (see, similarly, the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s non-appealed judgment in Quatrini Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2020/043). Also, nowhere in any of the documentation is it implied that the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Women¡¯s office had changed in a way that would disallow the employment of a driver at 3 level of the General Service staff category (¡°G-3¡±). The Respondent...