±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion, that the assault committed was not misconduct and that the Organisation¡¯s jurisdictional competence did not extend to the physical assault of a non-±¬ÁÏÍø staff member even where the assault is perpetrated by a staff member, was based on reasoning which was unsupported by law or the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, not only the issue had not been raised in the case presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, but such a proposition had also no foundation in the staff regulations, staff rules, administrative instructions, or jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

The issue for determination by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel of record before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the absence of any published ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by considering as mitigating factors the recommendation of Mr Jaffa¡¯s immediate supervisors that his actions warranted a reprimand and the fact that Mr Jaffa continued to perform for two further years (with positive reviews). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not attaching sufficient importance to the fact that Mr Jaffa held a position of trust as a Finance Assistant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had not overlooked relevant mitigating factors in imposing the sanction of separation from service. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

According to the available record, the applicant never received a letter of appointment and no such letter was ever signed by an authorized official. He did not, therefore, become a staff member of the United Nations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 1, of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. It follows that the applicant has no access to the system of administration of justice in its present state. It is noted that the General Assembly has requested the Secretary-General to investigate the option of granting access to non-staff personnel. Outcome: the application was rejected.

The decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness.The Secretary-General¡¯s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract.The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment as a result of...

The decision to terminate the Applicant¡¯s contract was taken at the Mission level, without the delegated authority required by ST/AI/234 and was therefore unlawful. The post facto approval of the decision by the ASG/OHRM does not cure the unlawfulness. The Secretary-General¡¯s action of entering into a contract of employment with the Applicant for the reason only of securing termination indemnities for the Applicant does not appear to be supported by any Staff Regulation, Staff Rules or any known principles of an employment contract. The termination of the Applicant¡¯s appointment as a result of...

The Tribunal found that the contested decision did not appear prima facie unlawful and dismissed the application.

An offer of employment and its acceptance amount to an agreement entailing rights for the Applicant: The contract by which an individual acquires staff member status can only be concluded validly on the date at which an official of the Organization signs the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment. However, as the Appeals Tribunal held, ¡°this does not mean that an offer of employment never produces any legal effects. Unconditional acceptance by a candidate of the conditions of the offer of an appointment before the issuance of a letter of employment can form a valid contract, provided the...