Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Unat a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT avait commis une erreur en droit ou en ne prenant pas en compte dans ce calcul la dur¨¦e probable du mandat de M. Dabbour dans ce r?le qui ¨¦tait connu pour avoir ¨¦t¨¦ d'une dur¨¦e fixe de trois ans. Unat a soutenu que, bien que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT dans le cas de M. Dabbour ait enregistr¨¦ ses conclusions sur certaines de ces consid¨¦rations, elle ne l'a pas du tout fait pour d'autres, ce qui rend difficile, voire impossible, de d¨¦terminer objectivement comment il a atteint l'appareil apparemment modeste Figure de compensation au lieu de la r¨¦cidive de 1 000 USD. Unat a soutenu qu...

Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a conclu correctement que la demande de M. Russo-Got contre la suppression de son poste n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir, car il n'avait pas fait une demande d'¨¦valuation de la gestion dans le temps. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'Untt a ¨¦galement correctement rejet¨¦ sa demande contre le non-renouvellement de son ALE parce qu'il avait re?u un avis de la date du non-renouvellement, il n'y avait aucune promesse expresse de renouveler, et Unots n'¨¦tait pas oblig¨¦ de lui trouver un autre poste .

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ une demande de r¨¦vision du jugement n ¡ã 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ l'affirmation de Mme Fosse selon laquelle SCBD / Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP est une unit¨¦ organisationnelle au sein du Secr¨¦tariat, et en tant que tel, inatricole se serait tromp¨¦ lorsqu'elle a jug¨¦ son transfert vers cette unit¨¦ en vigue Situ¨¦ au sein du Secr¨¦tariat. Cependant, le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que la demande de Mme Fosse a ¨¦t¨¦ entre autres rejet¨¦es par l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT parce qu¡¯elle n¡¯avait pas soumis sa demande de licenciement constructif pour l¡¯¨¦valuation de la direction. Par cons¨¦quent, en l'absence de cette exigence...

En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision n ¡ã 1 contest¨¦e, Unat a convenu avec Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT que le membre du personnel n'a pas demand¨¦ d'¨¦valuation de gestion en temps opportun des refus de sa demande de transfert. De plus, Unat a ¨¦galement convenu avec Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT qu'il n'y a aucune disposition dans les r¨¨glements et r¨¨gles du personnel concernant les modifications ou les transferts de postes pour des raisons m¨¦dicales. De plus, Unat a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que les informations m¨¦dicales ¨¤ ces heures pertinentes ont recommand¨¦ une retraite m¨¦dicale pr¨¦coce, pas un transfert. En ce qui concerne la d¨¦cision n ¡ã 2 contest¨¦e...

Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a fait appel en faisant appel que l'organisation n'avait aucune obligation de faire tous les efforts raisonnables pour placer le membre du personnel dans des postes appropri¨¦s disponibles, car il n'avait qu'un ALE et qu'une telle obligation n'¨¦tait destin¨¦e qu'aux personnes qui avaient des rendez-vous continus ou permanents. Inscrit en d¨¦saccord et a constat¨¦ que les membres du personnel devraient ¨ºtre ?conserv¨¦s? dans un ordre de priorit¨¦ favorisant, premi¨¨rement, ceux qui ont des nominations continues; Deuxi¨¨mement, les titulaires de FTA de plus de deux ans de dur¨¦e qui...

Undt a mal appliqu¨¦ la loi de la moments et a commis une erreur de droit pour porter le jugement contest¨¦, en ce qu'il a omis de suivre un adoption importante de Kallon relative ¨¤ l'approche prudente dans l'application de la loi de la st¨¦nologie.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT could not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Khamis¡¯ proven conduct did not itself amount to misconduct: he did not engage in transactional sexual relations with local persons and his sexual relations with two local women were more in the nature of domestic, albeit polygamous and ¡®open¡¯, relationships. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not established that payments made to both women were commercial transactions in return for sexual favours. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was not such an imbalance of power between Mr. Khamis and the two women that they could be termed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. The Tribunal explained although there is no expectancy of renewal, renewal of FTAs are ¡°normally¡± for a period of two years ¡°at a time¡±. Because of the words ¡°at a time¡±, the Tribunal cautioned that although a new FTA would supersede a previous one, it would not necessarily subsume the previous one. As such, a subsequent FTA would constitute a separate FTA. However, the Tribunal also highlighted that the applicable law in this case allowed the Administration to renew FTAs for periods less than two years. In conclusion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Mr. Russo-Got failed to show that, in deciding the merits of his claims, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law, or that its Judgment was otherwise flawed.

On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

Given the modest level of compensation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded to Ms. Malhotra and its non-payment since 20 November 2020, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT awarded interest on the 3-month net base salary calculated at the US prime rate from 20 November 2020 to the date of payment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1055. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant¡¯s rights. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s Judgment dismissing the Appellant¡¯s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that Ms. Xing¡¯s candidacy was given a full and fair consideration, in finding that the administrative instruction on gender parity (ST/AI/1999/9) did not apply in this case, and in not granting Ms. Xing¡¯s request to amend her application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has not been shown to have erred in requiring credible evidence of a clear and compelling nature of Ms. Xing¡¯s allegations of ulterior motives, which was absent.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms. Fosse¡¯s claim that SCBD/Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse¡¯s application was inter alia rejected by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.