Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.

Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

Having reviewed the parties¡¯ submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal defined the issues for determination as follows:

a. Whether the Applicant had a realistic chance of being selected; and

b. Whether the Applicant suffered any financial loss due to the contested decision.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that there were irregularities in the selection process and recommended that the selection exercise be redone. The Under Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) had also...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT nor on appeal.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to overturn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ experience was used to disadvantage her. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also...

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant¡¯s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant¡¯s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member sought to...

In the present case, according to the Applicant¡¯s own submissions, he was not in a situation of ¡°an absolute impossibility¡± of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it ¡°to be perfect¡±. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member¡¯s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency¡¯s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the vacancy had been advertised for only ten days which violated the mandatory requirement of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Personnel Directive, and this violation had been corrected by cancelling the recruitment process and constituting another one that met the requirement of the minimum posting period.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member had not identified the alleged defects of the impugned Judgment but rather had reargued his case and, therefore, had not discharged his burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the impugned Judgment had been in error.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was clear...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the deductions made for...

The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.

The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...