±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal established that there was no evidence to support the Administration¡¯s position. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the contested decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s claim for damages, the Tribunal concluded that no evidence was presented by the Applicant and thus he failed to sustain his burden of both production and proof. As a result, the request for moral damages was denied.

In light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings, the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant four months of interest on the money that was due to him, calculated at the...

The Tribunal recalled that staff rule 3.9(b) clearly requires that to be eligible for education grant, a staff member must "reside and serve" outside his or her home country. Based on the evidence on the record, the Tribunal established that the Applicant had telecommuted from his home country for the entire period of 2020-2021 academic year. On this score, the Applicant was not entitled to the education grant.

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s contention that he had relied on an erroneous information provided to him by the Organization, the Tribunal found that there was no reliance on incorrect...

The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not dispute the fact that he did not request management evaluation within the 60-day statutory period of staff rule 11.2(c). He did not dispute the fact that while the 60-day period commenced on 25 January 2021, he mailed his request for management evaluation on 16 April 2021, more than three weeks after the expiration of the statutory deadline.

Accordingly, since the Applicant did not seek management evaluation in a timely manner, his application was not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

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...

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...

AAF appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. As the Secretary-General had...