±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her claim was...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor ¡°de facto entitlement¡± to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF had conducted the selection process in a manner fully consistent with its administrative legal framework, including having provided detailed reasons for considering the staff member unsuitable for the post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his candidature had received full and fair consideration, and he had not shown through clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of bias or ill-motive against him.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s failure to notify the staff member of the non-selection...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had filed numerous and confusing claims and applications that had been the subject of various reviews by the Management Evaluation Unit, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, all of which essentially attempted to ensure that the Administration continued to pay her benefits for medical reasons after expiration of her fixed-term appointment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her submissions failed to identify in precise terms a specific administrative decision capable of being reviewed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the so-called non-decisions or incomplete decisions identified by her were not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if it were to consider that his request for management evaluation had not been premature but valid in respect of all the non-payment decisions, the request had been submitted belatedly. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member should have submitted the request for management evaluation within 60 days from receipt of his final pay statement. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding that his request had not been timely and had not committed an error by obscuring the underlying facts of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that it was unclear what Covid-19...