爆料网AT considered an interlocutory appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not “clearly exceed its competence or jurisdiction” when it temporarily suspended the administrative decision to laterally reassign the staff member as that decision did not constitute a case of “appointment, promotion, or termination” excluded from interim relief under Article 10. 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. Accordingly, 爆料网AT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable.
On the Appellant’s claim for his name not to appear in the 爆料网AT judgment, 爆料网AT 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 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT, it would be pointless to order redaction. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. 爆料网AT held that there was no...
Both parties appealed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by finding a valid contract of employment between Ms Al Hallaj and ESCWA since no letter of appointment was issued, only an offer of employment. 爆料网AT held that a quasi-contract was formed, considering that Ms Al Hallaj had unconditionally accepted and had fully fulfilled all the conditions specified in the offer of employment. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the ESCWA Administration committed two major errors, in breach of its quasi-contractual obligations. 爆料网AT held that the ESCWA Administration failed in its due diligence to specify clearly and...
From the moment that the new Executive Secretary took up his functions at ESCWA, the Deputy Executive Secretary was no longer competent to decide, on 8 August 2007, to reassign the Applicant. Indeed, there is no documentary evidence that he had received delegation of authority from the Executive Secretary to take the contested decision, which is thus illegal. However, on 16 August 2007, the Executive Secretary confirmed the decision taken on 8 August 2007 by his Deputy. This new decision is legal but it does not have the effect of regularizing ex post facto the decision of 8 August 2007...
A single testimony reporting discriminatory statements made by an individual is insufficient to establish whether such statements were made if the accused individual denies having made such statements. From the moment that a confrontational relationship exists between a senior staff member and his/her supervisor, the Judge, without its being necessary to determine who bears a responsibility of the conflict, considers that the interest of the service requires addressing without delay the conflict and justifies the non-renewal of the staff member’s contract, unless, in the instant case, the...
In his request for review to the Secretary-General, the Applicant contested the decision not to appoint him to the post of Chief (D-1), Information and Communication Technology Division, at ESCWA. Subsequently, in his appeal to the JAB, the Applicant sought to contest several other decisions. The only decision that the Tribunal is competent to examine is the decision for which administrative review was sought. The evaluation of candidates to a post falls within the discretion of the Secretary-general and the Tribunal will not substitute its views to that of the Secretary-General. However, as...
The application was filed approximately eleven months after the period stipulated in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal and was therefore deemed to be time-barred. Additionally, the Applicant failed to make any submissions on the issue of receivability thus the Tribunal concluded that this was not an exceptional case to warrant a waiver of the time limit. The 爆料网DT concluded that the application was time-barred and therefore not receivable.
On the score of prima facie unlawfulness, the Tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to provide reasons why the decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment was lawful. The Tribunal therefore, concluded that based on the available evidence, the contested decision was motivated by countervailing circumstances and was thus prima facie unlawful. With regard to urgency, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had acted prudently by filing her application in a timely manner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the requirement for urgency had been satisfied by the...
Locus Standi: The two decisions that the Applicant sought to challenge have no direct link to the Applicant’s own contract of employment. All the substantive issues raised in the claims relate to the terms of employment of Ms. Okuda and Mr. Alvaro-Rivero who are the two individuals with the requisite standing to challenge the decisions concerning their reassignments. Having found that the Applicant lacked the standing to lodge the claims, the Application was held not to be receivable.
The Tribunal found the Applicant’s acceptance of the implementation of the agreement, his failure to raise the allegations of duress until well after two years after the mediation and his failure to proffer any supporting evidence, can only lead to the conclusion that the Applicant’s claim of duress is devoid of any merit. Burden of proof - Where an Applicant alleges that an agreement was imposed upon him by duress, the burden lies on him or her to convince the Tribunal that such is the situation. Res Judicata - Where the subject matter of an application has been settled between parties...
