Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not shown that the Secretary-General of IMO was required, under the IMO staff regulations and the staff rules, to make available to a federation of international staff associations from different organisations an IMO staff member, who was elected to a high office, for all or part of the term. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reference in the appeal to Staff Rule 108. 1, concerning election, composition, and competencies of the staff committee, did not apply in the case. As to the question of inter-agency cost-sharing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could only establish that this had to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to that extent, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076) and Wu (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-042), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...

As consistently held by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the Dispute Tribunal has no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Time limits prescribed for administrative review (and management evaluation under the new system), which could be waived under the previous system, cannot be waived under article 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in article 8.3.

The Tribunal finds that the Salary case was never properly before the Tribunal and is not receivable. It is within the discretionary authority of the Secretary-General to reconsider whether the existence of an injury is attributable to the performance of official duties. In this case, the Secretary-General has refused to exercise that discretion. The Applicant¡¯s claims in as far as they rely on art. 11 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules are therefore not receivable. With respect to all of the Applicant¡¯s other claims including her claim for DSA and air ticket for her daughter¡¯s travel in 2002...

Obligation to take action under ST/SGB/2008/5: The Administration¡¯s obligation to take prompt and concrete action under section 5.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5 is not limited to formal complaints or reports but also extends to ¡°allegations¡± of prohibited conduct. Scope of application of ST/SGB/2008/5: Comments made in the context of a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal could in some circumstances fall under ST/SGB/2008/5. For example, harsh criticism unsupported by examples or the use of offensive language could constitute improper conduct that might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause...

Prima facie case: When the Respondent fails to respond to a submission of the Applicant and to the relevant evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal is left with the inference that the submission is correct.Urgency: The matter was imminent as the Applicant¡¯s contract ended in eight days from the date of the Judgment. The urgency was due to the Respondent not properly ensuring that a management evaluation would be ready before the scheduled day of separation.Irreparable harm: The harm that the Applicant contended he and his family will suffer from the non-renewal of his contract, and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that, given the burden of proof on the Administration to establish by ¡°clear and convincing evidence¡± that there is no retaliation pursuant to sec. 2.2 of ST/SGB/2005/21, and given some of the unresolved questions arising from the OIOS investigation report and its annexes, any reasonable reviewer would have examined the annexes, which the Ethics Office did not. Nor did the Ethics Office sent the report back to OIOS for further investigations and/or clarification. Since the Ethics Office did neither, the Respondent was found liable for the Ethics Office¡¯s failures and/or...

The non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s appointment was predicated on her harassment complaint of 12 April 2012 against her supervisor. The Tribunal finds and holds that the three elements for a grant of an order for suspension of action have been established in this case.

The Tribunal found that there was not clear and convincing proof that the documents were fake and therefore that count failed. However, as regards the other charges, the Applicant had not denied the violations, rather he had indicated that his superior, the Country Representative, was to blame for giving instructions to the Applicant which were in breach of the rules. The Tribunal considered that the responsibility of an Operations Manager when dealing, in particular, with procurement matters, was such that he could not rely on instructions given from above. Therefore, his liability in respect...