±¬ÁÏÍø

The right of the Applicant to a correct level of classification of the post and a fair level of pay derives from the effective functions performed in the years, always the same at least from 2018, functions which - according to the acknowledgement of the Administration itself - correspond to the FS-5 level.

The Applicant is entitled to a compensation calculated as the difference in salary, allowances, and other entitlements between the FS-5 level and the FS-4 level, for the period November 2018 to September 2022, plus interest at the rate correspondent to the rate of inflation, including the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

Once approved by the General Assembly, the decision to downgrade a post is placed outside the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction. There can be no issue of restoring this position and the Applicant as its incumbent. The only question that could be entertained by the Tribunal is whether, in proposing the budget, the administration acted lawfully, or, as it is alleged, engaged in a conspiracy against the Applicant to mislead the General Assembly. The Tribunal found that the Secretary-General¡¯s recommendation to downgrade one of the P-4 posts was lawful. The Tribunal was satisfied that the downgrading of...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration¡¯s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to ±¬ÁÏÍø staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT awarded damages from the correct date. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s allegation that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.