Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had consistently held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

The staff member appealed on the ground that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi¡¯s favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered ¨C or even favoured for reasons of gender ¨C in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for a de novo review.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the ¡°cheating¡± in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi¡¯s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

The Applicant contended that the Complainant¡¯s evidence contained numerous discrepancies and that the Complainant had exercised prevarication over her own statements and had displayed ambivalence over attempts to privately resolve the matter. The Applicant further contended that the finding of sexual harassment was based on the victim¡¯s own perception of the Applicant¡¯s actions. The Tribunal found that: based on the testimony and the entire file, the facts upon which the disciplinary measure was based were established; by any objective measure, the Applicant¡¯s conduct was prohibited by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF...

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant.

The Tribunal considered that the Administration had erred in finding that the Applicant¡¯s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal fact-finding investigation. It awarded him USD10,000 for the moral injury he had suffered because of the way in which the matter was dealt with by the Administration. Receivability ratione materiae: The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Administration¡¯s actions and omissions following a request for investigation submitted pursuant to ST/SGB/2008/5. Scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: Disagreements on work performance or on other work-related...

The Tribunal found that the application was receivable ratione temporis but rejected it on the merits, on the ground that the post whose functions the Applicant carried out was not vacant or temporarily vacant within the meaning of ST/AI/1999/17. The Tribunal further rejected the Applicant¡¯s request for moral damages. Receivability ratione temporis: The serious health problem suffered by the Applicant constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay in filing his application. The short period of time between the end of his sick leave and the filing of his application shows that the...

Award of allowances: The award of an allowance is contingent upon the existence of a written text. The fact that, in breach of the applicable provisions, the Administration granted the end-of-service allowance to staff members who were in the same situation as the Applicant cannot serve as a basis for awarding the allowance to her. Applicability of national laws: National legislations are not directly applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff members, and it is for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ authorized bodies to implement such legislation into the internal laws of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ. Judicial review: The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interpret...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that a party may apply for the revision of a judgment only when that judgment is executable, which was not the case with Judgment Odio-Benito Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/019 given that the Applicant had appealed it before the United Nations Appeals Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and rejected it.

The issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had a legal expectancy of renewal; whether the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post was a valid exercise of the Organization¡¯s discretion; and whether the Applicant was fully and fairly considered for the newly created posts following a restructuring within the Organization. Outcome: The application failed and was dismissed.

Applicants have a duty to pursue their causes of action promptly. Delay can cause considerable uncertainty and inconvenience not only for the Respondent but for third parties as well. The Applicant¡¯s fears of retaliation due to the non-existence of administrative machinery to protect him at the material times are not justified. This Application is not receivable as it was filed more than the three years stipulated under Article 8(4) of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal after the Applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. In addition, the facts in this case would not have...

The Applicant has no interest in the maintenance of the proceedings, therefore the case is closed.

Noting that the Applicant had neither filed an application on the merits nor any other application with regard to this case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT closed the case.

The application was withdrawn by the Applicant in light of a settlement agreement.

The impugned decision is grossly, patently, incurably and incontrovertibly unlawful. An order suspending the administrative decision pending management evaluation is bound to work injustice in the circumstances.The Application that gave rise to the proceedings and deliberations in this case clearly was brought under a wrong heading when it was filed as a suspension of action application. The Tribunal, in the present circumstances, must in the interest of justice move this matter to the cause list of applications on the merit and accordingly dispose of it fully and on the merits.Article 36 of...