Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant¡¯s case as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Karseboom¡¯s application for interpretation of judgment regarding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals of both the Secretary-General and Mancussen et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments and noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination and noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider staff member¡¯s suitability for conversion to a permanent appointment ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert her appointment¡± and that the Administration failed to comply with the said directive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management failed to give any consideration whatsoever to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Ademagic¡¯s cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Assistant Secretary-General for Office of Human Resources Management did not give meaningful individual consideration to the staff members¡¯ requests for conversion to permanent appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it gave a clear directive to the Administration that, upon remand, it should consider the staff members¡¯ suitability for conversion to permanent appointments ¡°by reference to the relevant circumstances as they stood at the time of the first impugned refusal to convert their...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while only final judgments of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT are appealable, exceptions may be made when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeding its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made an error of fact, resulting in an unreasonable decision when it found that the Appellant submitted her request for decision review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the evidence showed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make a factual error when it found that the request for decision review was made on 7 July 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as the request for decision review was submitted on 7 July 2014, the time for the Appellant to file an application for judicial review expired 120 days thereafter, on 4 November 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s application for judicial review was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant¡¯s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. The Appellant¡¯s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s failure to determine his motion to order the Secretary-General to produce relevant documents amounted to an error in procedure such as to affect the decision in the case. Article 19 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rules of Procedure gives Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT broad discretion in managing its cases and in determining whether or not it has sufficient evidence and information ¡°for the fair and expeditious disposal of the case and to do justice to the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant adduced no evidence to support his contention that the exercise of discretion by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings because he did not demonstrate the existence of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the decision to relocate the Appellant was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that an accepted method for determining whether the reassignment of a staff member to another position was proper is to assess whether the new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; whether the responsibilities involved corresponded to his or her level; whether the functions to be performed were commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminary denied the Appellant¡¯s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Kucherov did receive full and fair consideration for the post which was finally filled by another candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no flaw in the competitive selection procedure and agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment contained errors of fact and law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Section 7. 5 of ST/AI/2010/3, as amended, does not require a job opening to identify the specific assessment method to be used for the evaluation of technical skills. Rather, it provides that it may include a competency-based interview and/or other...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Mr Adundo¡¯s application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the merits of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, contrary to the findings by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the guidelines were violated as the duration of the weapons restriction was not mentioned within the communications between the Chief of the Security and Safety Service and Mr Adundo, it was clear that the restriction would remain in force until Mr Adundo was ¡°ready to obey lawful commands¡±, which was for him to attend weapons training for a security breach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 24(a) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made no error in finding that as a General Service staff member at the G-5 level, the Applicant was not eligible to apply for the vacancy advertised in the JO, which was a post in the Professional category at the P-5 level and that, therefore, the disputed decision had no legal consequences affecting him and no effect on his rights and terms of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the Appellant was not claiming a right to be consulted as an individual staff member, but rather, in his capacity as a staff representative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal concerned the interpretation of Article 35 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant wanted the Standing Committee to accept the period of contributory service with the Fund in order to calculate his own benefit but to take into account a different period vis-¨¤-vis his former spouse. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Articles 35bis and 22 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations were clear and that it could not distinguish where the text was clear. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the same date would apply to the calculation of the Appellant¡¯s benefits and the determination of whether his former spouse...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant¡¯s G-6 post, funded through government contributions, no longer exist on the 1st of August 2013, the day after the expiration of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason provided for the non-extension of appointment was supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that there was no evidence provided to support the allegation that the contested decision was ill-motivated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal the...