±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the facts suggest that the participant¡¯s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant¡¯s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

The...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/052 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/062. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the actual consideration afforded to Gueben et al. was minimal, inadequate, and not in accordance with the relevant instructions. Moreover, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its interpretation of the relevant provisions in ruling that the Officer in Charge for Human Resources Management could have converted their fixed-term appointments to permanent ones without a limitation of service. Further ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly substituted its discretion for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant¡¯s application for mobility allowance.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General raised the argument, inter alia, that Ms Lamb¡¯s retroactive appointment was disrupted when she resigned and separated and, therefore, she had no contractual relationship with the Organisation obliging it to place her preferentially in vacant posts as someone holding a permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded correctly that (1) Ms Lamb¡¯s employment ended in mid-2013 by her own initiative and (2) there was nothing in the documentation relating to Ms Lamb¡¯s resignation to support her assertion that it was...

The Tribunal finds that the pertinent facts and the legal issues in the present cases are on all fours as those of the ICTY cases. As both parties have accepted the ratio decidendi of the decisions by the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in the ICTY cases, the Tribunal adopts the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s findings in Malmstr?m 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-357 and remands the ±¬ÁÏÍøAKRT conversion exercise to the ASG/OHRM for retroactive consideration of the suitability of each applicant within 90 days of the date of publication of this judgment in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Appeals Tribunal in the matter of Malmstr?m. Taking into...

The Tribunal rescinded the decision finding that, in accordance with the plain meaning of ST/AI/2007/3, service with the United Nations Organization does not need to be continuous for a staff member to be eligible to receive ASHI. Staff Rule 4.17 is not applicable to the question of ASHI.

The Tribunal found that by filing her request for management evaluation only on 21 April 2015, the Applicant failed to respect the 60 day time limit under staff rule 11.2(c), which started to run as of 5 January 2015, the day of her signature of the letter of appointment. Subsequent responses from OHRM in response to queries from the Applicant were merely confirmative decisions of the original decision of 5 January 2015. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable, ratione materiae.

N/A

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision to deny the Applicant¡¯s request for advance home leave was unlawful and ordered the Respondent to correct the Applicant¡¯s personnel file to reflect the home leave points she accrued while working on temporary appointments, and to pay her material damages in the amount of USD1,543.04, in compensation of the price she paid for her flight ticket. Transition from a temporary to a fixed-term appointment: Sec. 1.2 of ST/AI/2010/4/Rev.1 indicates how the Organization shall proceed when granting a fixed-term appointment after a temporary appointment. However, it does...