±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not shown that the Secretary-General of IMO was required, under the IMO staff regulations and the staff rules, to make available to a federation of international staff associations from different organisations an IMO staff member, who was elected to a high office, for all or part of the term. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reference in the appeal to Staff Rule 108. 1, concerning election, composition, and competencies of the staff committee, did not apply in the case. As to the question of inter-agency cost-sharing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could only establish that this had to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO¡¯s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...

The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months¡¯ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer¡¯s representative and the original...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something ±¬ÁÏÍøAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the source of the Secretary-General¡¯s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

The Tribunal decided, by way of summary judgment, that it was not competent to examine the application, since the Applicant did not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations and since the IMO is not one of the organizations or entities with which a special agreement has been concluded under the terms of art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. C