±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, finding that the staff member¡¯s FTA was not terminated but rather, it expired in its own course. The Tribunal highlighted that a termination is initiated by the Secretary-General, under Staff Rule 9.6(a), and in the instant case, the staff member was not at all terminated on 30 May 2019. Instead, his FTA continued until its expiry on 30 June 2019, and until then, he retained his full position, rights and entitlements as a staff member of the Organization. The fact that the site was closed down, and the staff member was sent home with no work to do, is not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that Mr Russo-Got¡¯s application against the abolition of his post was not receivable, as he had failed to make a request for management evaluation within time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also correctly dismissed his application against the non-renewal of his FTA because he had received notice of the date of the non-renewal, there was no express promise to renew, and ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS was not obliged to find him an alternative post.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a ¡°disguised termination¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found because...

The Applicant addressed a letter dated 29 May 2009 to the Secretary-General requesting him to ¡°reverse that decision¡± but no mention was made of the non-renewal of the Applicant¡¯s contract because it was only on 30 June 2009 that the Applicant was informed that his contract would not be renewed beyond 30 September 2009. The Applicant sought to establish that he had in fact requested a review of the decision and referred to an email he had sent to the Registrar of the ICTR in which he informed him that he was contesting the decision not to renew his contract. That email was dated 27 April 2009...

In the present case, the Administration must be deemed to have made good faith efforts to identify a position for the Applicant, for it actually offered him an adequate position. For a position to be considered adequate, it is not sufficient that it is at the same level than the previous position of the concerned staff member. It is also required that it be in line with his/her skills, qualifications and experience. Anyone alleging that a given decision was based on improper motivation bears the burden of proof. Outcome: The application was rejected. ±¬ÁÏÍøADT Judgment No. 910 (1998)

±¬ÁÏÍøDP had an obligation to its staff to make it clear that the time frame for making applications for ad hoc posts might be less than the two weeks period mandated for QUARRY positions. The respondent, by virtue of the settlement agreement, was obliged to comply, amongst other things, with the Guidelines for the Recruitment and Selection of ±¬ÁÏÍøDP Staff, especially since they dealt with the subject of the agreement, namely support for the applicant¡¯s attempts to obtain another post. Where there was a particular duty to inform imposed by the settlement agreement and the failure to inform...