±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that by the Commissioner-General had been ordered to take a new decision with respect to the staff member¡¯s request in view of the increase in his managerial and budgetary duties and responsibilities.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the Commissioner-General had not been specifically ordered to upgrade his post or to grant him a special allowance; the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had deemed it to be within the discretion of the Commissioner-General to decide whether or not he should be compensated.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It held that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure, an oral hearing would not be of any assistance in this case as the issue for consideration was straightforward and not complex.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant¡¯s attempt to broaden the scope of the issue for consideration was untenable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that it was clearly agreed at the case management discussion (CMD) that the issue for determination was the desired reclassification of Mr. Menon's post from the P-4 to the P-5 level and that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order, finding that Mr. Okwakol¡¯s complaints about what the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service. The audio-recording needed to...

The Applicant did not deny the authenticity of the Microsoft Outlook notifications. This meant that the Applicant should have filed his application no later than 26 June 2023 to comply with the 90-calendar day deadline.

He filed his application on 28 June 2023, which was two days after the statutory deadline so the application was dismissed as not receivable.

Receivability

The Respondent challenged the receivability of the application. He argued that the Dispute Tribunal may only issue an Order for execution under art. 12.4 of its Statute where a judgment required a time limit for execution and such execution had not been carried out.

The Tribunal considered that while Judgment Applicant ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/055 did not provide for its execution within a certain period of time, it was reasonable to infer that in the absence of an appeal, said judgment should have been executed within a reasonable time, after the expiry of the 60-day time limit to file an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Applicant¡¯s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant¡¯s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (±¬ÁÏÍøMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected Mr...

Regarding the ex-gratia claim, the Tribunal observed that the evidence of the fact that the Applicant was carrying out the functions of a P-4 post could be noted from the fact that the functions which the P-4 currently is performing are the same as those which the Applicant was performing before she was reassigned in 2021. The Tribunal, thus, concluded that the Administration violated the Applicant¡¯s right to equal pay for equal work. The Applicant had the right to be compensated for her functions at the proper level, and therefore, she had the right to retroactive payment of salary lost...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2022/022.

Under the applicable legal framework, ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI and KJSO, like other United Nations organs, consistently and uniformly use the ±¬ÁÏÍøORE in all conversions to local currency, whether they involve transactions, determination of staff entitlements, or other financial recordings.

ST/SGB/2019/2 (Delegation of authority in the administration of the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Financial Regulations and Rules), do not allow for delegated authority in respect of ¡°exchange rate fluctuations¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI and KJSO therefore had no authority to overrule the said provision or to apply a different rate than the...

At the outset, the Tribunal recalled that based on the evidence on record, the Applicant¡¯s main claim to have the contested decision rescinded had been rendered moot by the Applicant¡¯s retirement. Therefore, the matter that remained for adjudication concerned compensation for the financial and moral harm.

In the entirety of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision had an improper motive and improper purpose and was therefore, unlawful. The Tribunal further held that based on the aforesaid, it was satisfied that the reassignment decision had a negative impact on...

The Administration has established that there is clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in a conflict of interest in procurement processes and that he misused ±¬ÁÏÍøDP property.

Under relevant rules and regulations, the Applicant clearly had an obligation to disclose fully and accurately his personal connection with Prime Options and St. Paul¡¯s, which were grounds to support a conflict of interest, and to recuse himself from any involvement in the procurement processes involving those two vendors. However, neither did the Applicant disclose the actual or possible conflicts of...

In the present case, the Applicant has not identified a reviewable administrative decision and there is no indication that he filed a request for management evaluation before submitting the application.

There is indeed uncertainty and possibly also disagreement regarding various material facts of the case. Accordingly, the case may not be adjudicated on the basis of a summary judgment.

The part of the present case concerning IOM is not receivable under the legal doctrine of lis pendens.

With regard to the HLIS decision, the Applicant refers to his request for management evaluation of 4 November 2022. As the application in the present case is filed after this date, this part of the application is therefore, from this perspective, now receivable under staff rule 11.2

The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01¡¯s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01¡¯s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01¡¯s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

±¬ÁÏÍø Secretary-General in not the Chief Administrative Officer of IOM, and IOM has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General accepting the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. Instead, IOM falls under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization.

As the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation was not filed before submitting the application to the Dispute Tribunal in the present case, the Tribunal does not have the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction under staff rule 11.2. The challenge against the decision of...

The context of the case in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô is not similar. Essentially, in °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant was the subject of an investigation, whereas in the present case, the Applicant was the complainant. Accordingly, In °¿¡¯µþ°ù¾±±ð²Ô, the applicant opposed a disciplinary investigation launched against himself based on a misconduct complaint made by others, and he then contested a decision to reject his request for an independent review of the investigation. The Appeals Tribunal, however, dismissed the applicant¡¯s challenge because the decision-maker eventually held in his favour as, contrary to the preliminary...