±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and distinguished the case at hand with the two cases cited by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that in the case at hand, the staff member¡¯s actions could have a substantial reputational impact on the Organization and could also adversely affect the relationship between the Organization, Member States and the Host Country. The Tribunal emphasized that the actions of the staff member went beyond the mere internal affairs of the Organization and in fact the fraudulent act was used as an instrument to avoid legal proceedings in the Host Country. As such, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the misconduct...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, finding that the staff member¡¯s FTA was not terminated but rather, it expired in its own course. The Tribunal highlighted that a termination is initiated by the Secretary-General, under Staff Rule 9.6(a), and in the instant case, the staff member was not at all terminated on 30 May 2019. Instead, his FTA continued until its expiry on 30 June 2019, and until then, he retained his full position, rights and entitlements as a staff member of the Organization. The fact that the site was closed down, and the staff member was sent home with no work to do, is not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of ¡°incapacitation¡± is a purely medical...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was erroneous. Additionally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a ¡°disguised termination¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found because...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the staff member¡¯s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member¡¯s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member had the...

The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant¡¯s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

Article 2 first confers the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to determine, in any application filed by an individual before it, whether the contested decision is an ¡°administrative decision¡± and whether it was made in compliance with or contrary to an individual¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. In other words, it is for the Tribunal to determine, inter alia, in any given case, whether a contested decision qualifies as an ¡°administrative decision¡± or not. As a matter of law and practice, a ¡°friend-of-court¡± brief is a legal position on the issues for determination before the...