±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted the Secretary-General¡¯s position that ±¬ÁÏÍøMIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøMIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the change in the composition of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, which was limited to a challenge of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s method of calculating the compensation awarded to Mr Nyasulu as an alternative to the rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr Nyasulu presumably had no objection to the compensation being re-calculated, as he did not rebut the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it had no option but to remand the case as, in order to rule on the Secretary-General¡¯s request, it would first need to be satisfied that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission was not correct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that could not be done because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT gave...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law or fact and had identified the relevant administrative decision to trigger the time limits for a request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no legal difference between an assignment and a reassignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that two different administrative decisions were notified to her was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that a communication of entitlements and benefits cannot constitute a notification of the underlying administrative decision concerning status was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

On the delay before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the delay was unfort±¬ÁÏÍøATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Civic limited to the extent to which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed her claim of compensation for pecuniary damage (loss of opportunity). On loss of opportunity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it found that the irregularity of cancelling the Appellant¡¯s performance appraisal and the failure to promptly issue another one did not suffice to demonstrate a significant chance or realistic prospect of her retaining another position within the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularity was inconsequential for the purposes of the...

Contrary to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding, Mr. Kollie¡¯s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General¡¯s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie¡¯s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...

In light of the Applicant¡¯s withdrawal of his application for suspension of action and subsequent lack of prosecution of the proceedings, there is no matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution, without determination of its merits, and the case is closed.

The Applicant¡¯s challenge of his non-renewal is not receivable as no administrative review of this decision was sought. The Respondent failed to reasonably exercise the discretion to withhold or modify the Investigation Report (and Executive Summary). The parties will be directed to make submissions on appropriate relief.