Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Unat a consid¨¦r¨¦ l'appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande de cong¨¦ du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral pour soumettre de nouvelles preuves, car le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral a eu la possibilit¨¦ de pr¨¦senter les preuves pr¨¦c¨¦dant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre rejet¨¦ les demandes du membre du personnel en r¨¦ponse et effectuer une audience orale concluant que les questions en appel avaient ¨¦t¨¦ correctement clarifi¨¦es. Unat a soutenu que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ne s'¨¦tait pas substitu¨¦ ¨¤ tort ¨¤ l'administration. Unat a jug¨¦ que les conclusions de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¦taient ¨¦tay¨¦es par des preuves et ne feraient donc pas partie de la...

Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande d'anonymat selon laquelle il n'y avait aucune circonstance exceptionnelle qui pourrait justifier l'¨¦cart des principes g¨¦n¨¦raux et de la jurisprudence bien ¨¦tablie. Unat a soutenu que la peur th¨¦orique des relations inconfortables ¨¤ venir entre les membres du personnel n'avait pas de m¨¦rite. Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande de l'appelant pour d¨¦poser une r¨¦ponse ¨¤ la r¨¦ponse de l'intim¨¦ ne trouvant aucune circonstance exceptionnelle justifiant une plaidoirie suppl¨¦mentaire. Unat a rejet¨¦ la deuxi¨¨me requ¨ºte de l'appelant pour demander une autorisation pour pr¨¦senter des...

Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas abord¨¦ la demande des appelants pour une prolongation du d¨¦lai, mais avait plut?t converti Sua Sponte la demande en demandes incompl¨¨tes et a jug¨¦ sommairement leurs demandes comme non ¨¤ recevoir. Unat a soutenu que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'aurait pas pu convertir Sua Sponte la demande des appelants pour plus de temps en applications. Unat a jug¨¦ que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas offert aux appelants la possibilit¨¦ de d¨¦poser une demande et avait commis plusieurs erreurs de proc¨¦dure, a d¨¦pass¨¦ sa juridiction et sa comp¨¦tence, et a viol¨¦ les droits de la proc¨¦dure r¨¦guli¨¨re des appelants...

Unat a rejet¨¦ la demande d'audience orale constatant qu'il n'y avait pas besoin de clarification suppl¨¦mentaire. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas bas¨¦ son appel ¨¤ aucun motif d'appel conform¨¦ment aux personnes ¨¦tablies dans le statut de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Unat ¨¦tait d'accord avec les conclusions de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT sur la soumission pr¨¦matur¨¦e pour examen de la pr¨¦tendue d¨¦cision administrative approuvant un nouveau workflow, la non-r¨¦¨¦vabilit¨¦ de la contestation contre la directive au personnel du D¨¦partement des finances de ne pas prendre les instructions de l'appelante, ainsi que comme la nature...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a consid¨¦r¨¦ l'appel du commissaire g¨¦n¨¦ral de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ les conclusions et les conclusions du jugement de l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT en appel sur l¡¯ill¨¦galit¨¦ de la fermeture de l¡¯enqu¨ºte sur les plaintes du membre du personnel. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT avait proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ soigneusement l'examen judiciaire de la d¨¦cision administrative contest¨¦e. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT avait proc¨¦d¨¦ ¨¤ un exercice l¨¦gitime lorsqu'il a tir¨¦ ses conclusions du rapport d'enqu¨ºte. Unat a jug¨¦ que les irr¨¦gularit¨¦s, telles que le non-respect de la plainte sp¨¦cifique sur le harc¨¨lement, plusieurs exemples d...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, citing the principle of res judicata, noted that the authority of a final judgment could not be so readily set aside. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the limited grounds and the gravest of reasons required for setting aside a final judgment by an appellate court are not met in this case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, as the staff member also acknowledges, the current request fell outside of the permissible grounds for revision, correction, or interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that there were no grounds for it to review this matter in any way, dismissed the staff member's application and affirmed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly stated that even if it could be argued that the profile of the Broadcast Technology Officer (BTO P-4) post had changed due to the drafting of new Terms of Reference (TOR) by Ms Hermann, the only viable course of action in the circumstances for the purposes of filling it would have been a regular, competitive selection process and not a comparative review as happened in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the so-called comparative review between Ms Hersh and Mr Tobgyal for the only post...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and Mr Terragnolo¡¯s cross-appeal, noting that only the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was being contested. With respect to the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific remedy of allowing Mr Terragnolo to take the examination was not available and therefore, subsidiary compensation was the appropriate remedy to be ordered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned judgment followed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, but Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s estimation of the loss of chance was absurd or contrary to the evidence and particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that due...

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 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 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 held that the Appellant introduced new elements for consideration on appeal that were not put forward at the trial level (Annex 4 (Post Classification Questionnaire Form), and the contentions about alleged procedural irregularities preceding the non-upgrading of the Appellant¡¯s post). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents and arguments put forward for the first time were inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant had failed to persuade Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT that the impugned decision contained any error of fact or law that could warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s request for leave to submit new evidence since the Secretary-General had the opportunity to present the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s requests in response and to conduct an oral hearing finding that the appealed issues had been adequately clarified. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erroneously substituted itself for the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings were supported by evidence and would, therefore, not interfere with the determination as to the existence of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to file a reply to the Respondent¡¯s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s second motion seeking leave to present additional ¡°information¡± which she claimed related to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and fact in ordering the refund of the recovery of the overpayments for two months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Ten Have was aware of the overpayment in April 2013 and therefore, the general rule of Section 3. 1 of ST/AI//2009/1 was applicable and the recovery of the two months overpayments was not excessive since the limit of two years could not be applied due to the staff member¡¯s awareness of the overpayments as of April 2013, regardless of her previous ignorance or bona fide. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that as no request for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant¡¯s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and do...