±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT noted that the contested decision had been rescinded by the Prosecutor, ICTY, and hence the application was moot. The Applicant contended however that the decision had already been implemented since she was no longer assigned any appeals-related work. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT examined whether her new functions were commensurate with her functional title of Senior Appeals Counsel (P-5), and whether the Prosecutor, ICTY, was entitled to assign her to such tasks. It found that pursuant to staff rule 1.2 (c) and Annex IV to ST/AI/234/Rev.1, the Administration had broad discretionary powers when it comes...

The Applicant contended that the transfer decision was unlawful in that it was arbitrary and adopted and implemented in breach of mandatory procedures and that ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD senior management acted in bad faith and with ulterior motives when doing so. The Respondent submitted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD senior management acted within its margin of discretion and on properly reasoned grounds based on the Applicant¡¯s skills and qualifications and the operational needs of ±¬ÁÏÍøCTAD both in New York and Geneva. The Tribunal found that the reasons provided to the Applicant for his transfer were not justified by the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøON Administration had, prior to mid-2012 when the error was discovered, been miscalculating the amount of overtime and compensatory time off due to Security Officers and Drivers at ±¬ÁÏÍøON. The Security Officers, as a result had received payments in excess of what was due to them. Administrative errors - As held in Boutruche, the Administration has a right and even an obligation to put an end to illegal situations as soon as it becomes aware of them, while preserving any rights acquired by staff members in good faith. Staff-management consultations - No staff-management...

Lateral reassignment: The Tribunal held that the decision to laterally transfer the Applicant was lawful as it fulfilled the conditions for such a transfer as set out in Rees. The new post was at the staff member¡¯s grade; the responsibilities involved corresponded to his level; the functions to be performed were commensurate with the Applicant¡¯s competence and skills and the Applicant had substantial experience in the field. Reasons for the contested decision: The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s complaints about the lack of or the adequacy of reasons for the decision were unsubstantiated...

Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2015/129

Contingency of the Applicant¡¯s FTA: return of Mr. C. to post No. 501057

Under sec. 6.7 of ST/AI/2010/3, in cases of secondment, a lien against a specific post shall only be granted for up to two years, after which it shall be surrendered. No discretion is granted to the Administration for extending the lien beyond the two years. Quite distinctly, para. 7 of ST/AI/404 allows the Administration to extend the mission assignment beyond the two years period, and continue blocking a specific post in the parent department, provided there is a specific written agreement to...

While staff regulation 1.2(c) provides that in exercising his authority to assign staff members to activities or offices of the United Nations, the Secretary-General shall seek to ensure that ¡°all necessary safety and security arrangements are made for staff carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them,¡± such arrangements are not, in all circumstances, merely limited to physical safety and security. Reassigning a staff member from a core P-5 post established by the General Assembly to a General Temporary Assistance (GTA)-funded P-5 post established by ESCWA did not satisfy the test of a...

Receivability The Respondent challenged the receivability ratione materiae of the application, arguing that the final administrative decision was notified to the Applicant on 24 November 2016. The Tribunal found that no final decision had been taken on 24 November 2016, and that the matter was being further reviewed, on the basis of new elements and discussions, inter alia, with the President of ICTY. Therefore, by filing her request for management evaluation on 21 January 2017, against the communication of 29 November 2016 denying her release, the Applicant respected the statutory deadline of...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was a case in which the host country was not forthcoming or did not provide reasons which justified the PNG decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that once the Organisation had verbally stated, determined and notified the Applicant that the allegations against her were not considered misconduct, it had a duty as per Hassouna (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2014/094) not to change the terms and conditions of her contract. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Secretary-General had the power to reassign the Applicant on an exceptional basis and should have done so. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that, according to Hassouna, the Organisation could not resort to...

Regarding the Applicant¡¯s challenge to the decision not to return her to the post she previously encumbered, since the Applicant was transferred to another Organization, she no longer has any contractual relationship, and therefore any lien to a post, with the United Nations Secretariat from the date of the transfer. The only remedy that the Applicant seeks is the return to the post she previously encumbered or assignment to a suitable vacant position in New York, and the Tribunal cannot order such remedy due to the cessation of the Applicant¡¯s contractual relationship with the United Nations...

Any changes to the Applicant¡¯s functions were simply a result of a change in management style by which the new head of department put herself more in center of the Applicant office¡¯s work. The Applicant¡¯s responsibilities were accordingly more aligned with her P-5 level and her job description rather than undertaking tasks at the D-1 level.