Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first considered the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT issued the first Order. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA¡¯s arguments were heard by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was also not persuaded by ABA¡¯s argument that the violation...

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision not to select the Applicant for the position of P-4 Reviser (Russian) was lawful in that he was given full and fair consideration for the position.

The Tribunal found that the applicable procedures were properly followed, and that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities were unsubstantiated.

With respect to full and fair consideration, the Tribunal noted that after reviewing the applications based on the established evaluation criteria, four candidates were deemed not to be suitable and five candidates...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP) on...

The Tribunal noted the Applicant¡¯s persistence in raising previously rejected arguments.While no costs were awarded, the Tribunal warned the Applicant and his counsel against vexatious litigation, referencing similar cases and jurisprudence. The application was dismissed in its entirety as not receivable.

The Tribunal held:

1. Insofar as Decision A had already been ruled upon by two judgments that were now final, that part of the application was not receivable, being res judicata.

2. The Applicant¡¯s challenges of Decisions B, C and D which were grounded on her Appendix D claim of 12 November 2020, were not receivable, being time-barred.

3. The consequential decisions arising from Decisions A - D were all rejected as irreceivable because they could not stand on their own.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

In any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant¡¯s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency¡¯s regulations and...

Receivability

The Applicant correctly submitted that he was not contesting the promulgation of the Mobility AI. It was clear from the content of the application that he did not challenge the existence of the Mobility AI as a regulatory decision of the Secretary-General affecting all staff members. Instead, he was contesting the impact of what he perceived as a specific decision made after he accepted the offer of appointment, i.e., that the Mobility AI would be a term of his employment contract. The Tribunal thus found the application receivable.

Merits

The Tribunal established that the Applicant...

interpreting medical reports to determine the cause and extent of medical disabilities is the essence of forensic medicine and the result is clearly a medical determination.

this argument seeks to have the Tribunal second-guess the Administration¡¯s finding that the X-ray camera did not fall on the Applicant¡¯s knee in 2017. That is beyond the purview of this Tribunal. In conducting a judicial review of an administrative decision, the Tribunal must defer to the Administration¡¯s factual findings and may not substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Moreover, it is clear from...

The Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal (which were also approved by the General Assembly), expressly provide that ¡°published judgements will normally include the names of the parties.¡± Even if names were within the ambit of ¡°personal data¡±, it appears clear that this Tribunal must balance the need for accountability with the need to protect personal data according to the circumstances of each case. In so doing, it is the general practice of this judge to avoid using names, other than the parties, to protect the anonymity of innocent persons somehow involved in the case. As a victim of...

Having considered all the submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the main issue for determination was whether the hiring manager conducted a fair and unbiased assessment of the Applicant¡¯s candidacy, giving it full and fair consideration.

The spreadsheet submitted by the Respondent in response to Order No. 57 (GVA/2024) sheds a light into the matter. This contemporaneous document showcases the hiring manager¡¯s thorough assessment of the Applicant¡¯s professional experience.

The Applicant¡¯s submissions concerning his title, long satisfactory service, OiC experience...

As the Applicant filed the application before the Dispute Tribunal almost two months after the decision to include his name in the ClearCheck database was implemented, the application for suspension of action was therefore not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the President of the Council of ICAO, in taking the decision not to approve the appointment of the staff member to the post, had regard to relevant considerations: the staff member was negatively assessed by the interview panel and the assessment centre, and had serious weaknesses in areas of vision and other competencies which were critical skills for ICAO. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reasons provided by the President accorded with the facts.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, although the President discussed the matter with some members of the panel, these discussions had not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in...