±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Modey-Ebi. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the issues in the appeal were entirely factual, most of which were resolved on the evidentiary record which in most respects established a pattern of misconduct justifying dismissal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while some of the proven allegations against Ms. Modey-Ebi were less serious than others, cumulatively they revealed a pattern of unethical conduct indicating that Ms. Modey-Ebi was not suited for the senior position she held. Her behaviour revealed a lack of propriety and integrity and her behaviour was inconsistent with her duties under...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal by the Secretary-General and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Andrysek. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law or fact in accepting estimates from three different hospitals in Turkey, although one such estimate dated in December 2015 (close to the date of the interventions in Geneva, November 2015) and the other two estimates were submitted much later in October 2019. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the December 2015 estimate was a fair estimate of the medical costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that a more favourable exchange rate (1 USD : 3 TRY), which was applicable in 2016, should have been applied to the October 2019 estimates. The Tribunal...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that in as much as the Applicant¡¯s situation regarding promotion was re-examined by the Administration, not at the Applicant¡¯s request but on the Administration¡¯s initiative, the Applicant could not seriously assert that he was unable to inform the Appointment, Posting and Promotions Board (APPB) of the mistakes contained in his file. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant had the right to contest before the Tribunal the decision notified to him on the grounds that the APPB would have founded its non-recommendation for promotion on incorrect facts. Regarding the Applicant¡¯s...