±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to depart from its prior analysis that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF was not part of the Secretariat and neither the Secretary-General nor the executive head of any other member organisation, has authority over the management of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF or the independence of the Chief Executive Officer of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF in the administration of its staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had no power to interfere or intervene in the election of members to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s staff pension committees; those elections were governed exclusively by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/151 by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law in breaching the confidentiality of a letter and Note to File previously ordered to be kept confidential and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to redact those paragraphs of the impugned judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law: (1) by reviewing de novo the impugned decision; (2) by failing to recognise, respect and abide by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence; and (3) by finding that the surrounding circumstances created an implied promise...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request that the Secretary-General produced the underlying job description for the post, to verify if a typing requirement had been introduced since the last revision, finding that it would be neither necessary nor useful for the fair and expeditious resolution of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the contested decision fulfilled objective criteria of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, considering that the test was to be taken online, with the Appellant being based in Bangkok and the test being administered from New York, it was normal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, specifically whether General Assembly resolutions 63/250 and 65/247 apply to staff in the General Service category, and whether Staff Rules 4.14(b) and 4.16(b) apply to staff at the General Service level. With respect to the first issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that Paragraph 23 of section II of General Assembly resolution 63/250 and Paragraph 50 of section VI of General Assembly resolution 65/247 include two categories of staff members in the United Nations Secretariat who have the right to be granted a continuing appointment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that Article 24(a) ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations does not provide a right to restore prior contributory service to participants who, on or after 1 April 2007, had elected to receive a deferred retirement benefit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant fell into this category. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Standing Committee was affirmed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to ±¬ÁÏÍøMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.