±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that Mr. Suarez Liste be granted additional steps upon initial appointment contrary to the Grading Guidelines for language staff. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly broadened the definition and criteria of ¡°relevant work experience¡± in the Grading Guidelines to include additional academic qualifications. By doing so, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had created a new factor or criterion in the application of the Grading Guidelines, e.g., consideration of a Ph.D. in the step-in-grade calculation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was a policy...

AAF appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. As the Secretary-General had...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that as a long-serving member of the Secretariat, Mr. Guenfoudi was aware of the required standards of performance for his function as a Verbatim Translator. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that he had been given a fair opportunity to address his performance shortcomings, but he refused to participate in the two performance improvement plans. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Organization¡¯s legal framework was clear that termination was a foreseeable action following two consecutive years of substandard performance ratings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Guenfoudi¡¯s allegations that his...

The various acts submitted by the Respondent¡ªGeneral Assembly resolution 76/245 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 24 December 2021; ACABQ report A/76/7 (First report on the proposed programme budget for 2022) dated 13 August 2021; Draft Fifth Committee resolution submitted by its Chair following informal consultations A/C.5/77/L.23 (Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022; General Assembly resolution A/RES/77/262 (Seventy-seventh session, Agenda item 138, Proposed programme budget for 2023) dated 30 December 2022...

The application is not receivable ratione temporis as time-barred.

The situation of the present case is that only two persons, namely the Applicant and AA, were present when the alleged sexual abuse occurred, and they have presented contradictory witness testimonies. As the case involves termination, the question for the Tribunal to determine is therefore whether the Respondent has established with clear and convincing evidence that the factual background upon which the disciplinary sanction is well-founded. This means that AA¡¯s testimony is highly probable whereas, in consequence, the Applicant¡¯s testimony is not reliable.

With reference to the Tribunal¡¯s...

In asserting whether the Administration properly determined the Applicant¡¯s step-in-grade, the core issue before the Tribunal is whether and, if so, to what extent, the Applicant¡¯s Ph.D. experience in Economics would constitute relevant work experience for a language professional under the Grading Guidelines for language staff.

The documentary evidence on record shows that the Applicant did his Ph.D. in Economics from 1 October 2014 to 9 June 2019 on a full-time basis. Therefore, his Ph.D. experience in Economics would amount to around two years and four months of relevant experience...

The scope of judicial review in termination cases due to unsatisfactory service is limited to reviewing whether the appointment was lawfully terminated based on the applicable rules. It is not the role of the Tribunal to conduct a review of the performance evaluation process or to determine a different performance rating. In this case, the Applicant was notified that based on the 2020-2021 overall rating of ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± and the 2019-2020 ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡±, the Administration decided to terminate his continuing appointment. Having examined...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence supported the conclusion that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was overall lawful and did not violate her rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not deprived of any significant chance of being promoted because there were other candidates ranked higher than her. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the merits of the administrative decision that would warrant ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s intervention. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that she was not properly...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General on the compensation awarded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the cross-appeal by Ms Antaki, regarding ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the decision not to appoint her was valid and lawful, in a separate judgment (judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-096). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, despite the shortcomings in the process, the decision not to appoint Ms Antaki was both valid and lawful, which should have precluded ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from awarding any compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in awarding compensation in the absence of any procedural errors in the selection process, or a breach of legal rights...