±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ST/AI/2003/8 was inapplicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the relevant administrative instruction was ST/AI/2010/3, which integrated the recruitment, placement, promotion and mobility of staff within the Secretariat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in its view, the authority to make lateral transfers to fill job openings at the same level extended to both immediate and anticipated job openings, including posts that would become vacant due to retirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the impugned decision complied with the legal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to conduct a fresh investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

On the Appellant¡¯s claim for his name not to appear in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, it would be pointless to order redaction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to fully assess...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member¡¯s spouse was not entitled to a survivor¡¯s benefit. Nonetheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

Starting with the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Administration acted in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Rules when it invited three roster candidates for an informal interview and made a final selection from the roster. Given the presumption of regularity was satisfied, the burden of proof shifted on the staff member who must demonstrate that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. This, the staff member failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member can only challenge a specific administrative decision, and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.

The application was not receivable under article 13 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure because at the time the application was filed, there was no management evaluation pending. It was only on 21 October 2009 that the Tribunal received a copy of the request for management evaluation of the decision of 5 October 2009. The application was not receivable under article 14 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure because the administrative decision dated 5 October 2009 to fill the post related to an appointment and could not be the subject of interim relief in view of the exception contained in article 14...

The advertisement of a vacancy announcement is an action in rem, not in personam. In the present case, the Applicant failed to prove that the failure on the part of the Respondent to advertise the total number of posts to be filled in the vacancy announcement was a material error which violated his rights. With respect to the various allegations of discrimination, favouritism, corruption, lack of transparency, forgery, gambling, impunity, and abuse of authority in the selection system at stake, the Applicant failed to prove his pleas