±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate Mr. Crotty due to abolition of post was never implemented because he obtained another position with the Organisation and that this rendered moot the Administration¡¯s decision to terminate him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision was no longer a live issue and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not competent to pass judgment on the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law when it found Mr. Crotty¡¯s application receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in light of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s error in receiving the application, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s compensation orders in the cases in which staff members had secured alternative employment, finding that the applications had become moot. In the remaining cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that any permanent staff member facing termination due to abolition of post must show an interest in a new position (for which he or she is suitable and qualified) by timely and completely applying for that position. However, once the application process is completed, the Administration is required by Staff Rule 13. 1(d) to consider the permanent staff member on a preferred or non-competitive basis...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered all the grounds of the appeal and held that the issue of whether the Appellant¡¯s application was pre-screened by a Human Resources Officer was irrelevant to determine whether his candidature received full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the main issue for its determination was whether, at the time of application, the Inspira system had provided all of the correct options to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this was a factual determination which, without relevant evidence, could not be made. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to enquire as to what options were available in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the ±¬ÁÏÍø Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General ¡°to grant an appointment¡± to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member¡¯s appointment. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member¡¯s 2016 WAE...

The ¡°reason to believe¡± must be more than mere speculation or suspicion: it must be reasonable and hence based on facts sufficiently well founded ¨C though of course, not necessarily proved ¨C to rationally incline the mind of the decision maker to the belief. It is clear that the question is one of fact and degree in which the decision maker is bound to act reasonably but which necessarily involves the exercise of judgment. It is inaccurate to refer to such a judgment as the exercise of a discretion. If the USG in this case had in fact decided that there was ¡°reason to believe¡± that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it was only when the Applicant learned of the identity of the successful candidate that he could reasonably have apprehended that there were grounds for such a review. Time therefore runs from 2 March 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the time for filing the appeal ran from the time when the Applicant discovered the identity of the person which in turn gave rise to his apprehension that he had grounds for an appeal. Accordingly, his application for review was in time and his appeal is receivable.

Outcome: Application dismissed as the preponderance of evidence demonstrated that the applicant¡¯s candidature had been given full and fair consideration.

The Board of Examiners decided that the applicant did not satisfy the educational requirement. The applicant believed that she was qualified because she had obtained a vocational training from the Centre d¡¯Ecriture et de Communication (¡°the Centre¡±), and that supportive remarks made about this by her supervisor and work colleagues confirmed her belief. The Centre was not a university or equivalent institution in the French educational system, and the applicant had not ¡°five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989¡±. These prerequisites did not...

The filling of the Post with the ultimately-successful candidate cannot be characterized as a ¡°transfer¡±, be it lateral or not. The ultimately-successful candidate was therefore rather selected for the Post. Simply stated, the Post did not qualify as a lateral transfer. The Respndent employed the wrong procedure. The Applicants, although ranked behind the initially-successful candidate, were also ¡°suitable¡± candidates for the Post. The Tribunal finds that the selection exercise for the initially-selected candidate was improper. The Applicants having been deemed by the Tribunal as suitable...