Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reassignment decision did not breach any rule, noting that, under Staff Regulation 1. 2(c), staff members are subject to the authority of the Secretary-General and to assignment by him or her to any of the activities or offices of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision did not contravene ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1, ST/SGB/172 or ST/SGB/274. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to reject the Appellant¡¯s argument that the Organisation failed to act in good faith in its dealings with him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, where the implementation of an administrative decision is imminent, through no fault or delay on the part of the staff member, and takes place before the five days provided for under Article 13 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP have elapsed, and where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is not in a position to make a decision under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, i. e. because it requires further information or time to reflect on the matter, it must have the discretion to grant a suspension of action for these five days. To find otherwise would render Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

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 there was no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the quantum of compensation awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the termination indemnity paid to Mr Bowen should be deducted from the compensation awarded to him as an alternative to rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was excessive, noting that the decision only affected the three remaining months of his one-year term and that termination indemnity was paid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Bowen had not produced evidence of exceptional circumstances that would justify the award of compensation equivalent to the maximum statutory...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the language on overtime was interpreted for around 50 years in one way and then was changed and that there was some ambiguity in the provision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was still unclear on some issues surrounding whether it was proper for Staff Rules to apply differently in different duty stations and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should hear evidence on the issue, including on potential differences in application amongst departments in New York. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded it to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for further proceedings.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s allegations that the statements of her witnesses were used in their entirety by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, even assuming that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been in breach of its rules of procedure by making those statements, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had not been established that the said breach gave rise to an error in procedure liable to influence the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegation, that the staff member who recruited her gave her assurances liable to create a well-founded expectation of contract renewal, was not justified. Noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...