Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence...

Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding of the unlawfulness of reassignment decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that reassignment is proper if the new post is at the staff member¡¯s grade; if the responsibilities involved correspond to his or her level; if the new functions are commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competencies and skills; and if he or she has substantial professional experience in the field. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in Ms Rees¡¯ case, none of these factors existed with respect to the position to which the Administration purported to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in applying Former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant¡¯s pay-out and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not erred in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant¡¯s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant¡¯s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Marshall. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any reasonable or logical reading of Staff Regulation 1. 2 mandated the Organisation to investigate when the Complainant, in her letter of 15 August 2005, called Mr Marshall¡¯s conduct into question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and fact in determining otherwise. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis in law or fact for the pronouncements made by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in paragraphs 112-113 of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had applied an unduly restrictive...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not in dispute that the Appellant did not submit a request for management evaluation until more than one year after he had been notified that he had not been selected for the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, under Article 11.1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, was obliged to issue a judgment in writing, stating the reasons, facts, and law on which it was based. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decisions, that the Appellant had been properly served with a notification in writing in compliance with former Staff Rule 111.2 and that Article 8.3 prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from extending the deadline for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT addressed the staff member¡¯s appeal seeking reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency¡¯s extension of the Appellant¡¯s...

Regarding the lateral moves, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact, that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of ¡°lateral move¡± in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the three appeals by the Secretary-General against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals were receivable because: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering the suspension of the contested decision beyond the date of completion of management evaluation; and (2) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 10. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute by ordering, during the proceedings, a suspension of the contested decision as an interim measure in a case of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 129 suspended the contested decision beyond...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.

Delegation of authority: Any withdrawal or limitation of the delegation of authority must be explicit. In the absence of a clear and formal revocation of the delegation by the delegating authority, the decision taken by the delegating authority is tainted by a substantial procedural flaw¡ªthat of the lack of competence of the decision-maker.Legal certainty and application of administrative issuances: ST/SGB/2009/10 does not provide for transitional measures in situations, such as the instant case, where an eligible staff member is assigned to a different department or office between the time...

Management evaluation: The Tribunal can only suspend an administrative decision that is subject to an ongoing management evaluation.Cancellation of vacancy announcements are administrative decisions that have been implemented and therefore can not be subject of a suspension of action application. The Applicant had not sought management evaluation of the ongoing selection process as such the Tribunal found that it could not be subject to a suspension of action application.

The Applicant¡¯s reassignment to ONUCI was frustrated by the force majeure, the outbreak of violence in C?te d¡¯Ivoire and this event was beyond the control of the Administration. There were no exceptional circumstances that would have justified placing the Applicant on special leave with full pay between 1 July 2011 and 6 December 2011.The Applicant was lawfully placed on SLWOP upon the expiry of his provisional reassignment to ONUCI. The Applicant is not entitled to any relief for the delay in receiving certain written tests as a result of the disconnection of his Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ webmail address. However...

Management evaluation: The Applicant requested management evaluation of each of the administrative decisions that he challenged before the Tribunal. Mediation: the Tribunal found that mediation was sought by the Respondent regarding the proposed disciplinary measure of demotion but the discussion between the Applicant and the ombudsman, went beyond the scope of the demotion. Mediation was sought within the deadline for filing the Application. The time for filling an Application starts from the date when mediation breaks down therefore the application was filed within the applicable time limits...