±¬ÁÏÍø

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui¡¯s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an ¡°administrative decision¡± and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

The dispute between the parties relates to whether the Applicant met the condition of satisfactory service during his probationary period to warrant a contractual right to have his FTA converted into a CA. In this context, the Applicant claims that his FRO and SRO did not identify any performance shortcomings during the performance cycle, including at the two ¡°landmark¡± performance discussions they had previously to the contested decision. Allegedly, the first time he heard about any dissatisfaction with his performance was when he was informed that he would not receive a CA and, instead...

It is within the discretion of the Applicant¡¯s SRO to make comments on her performance. ¡°[M]aking comments in an ePAS about the need for a staff member to improve performance in certain core values and competencies is an important tool for the managers to carry out their functions in the interest of the Organization and, hence, their willingness to do so need to be supported and boosted¡±. It represents a legitimate exercise of administrative hierarchy evaluating employees.

The comments in question do not detract from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal. They are constructive...

The Tribunal is seized of an application where the staff member contests the termination of her permanent appointment and separation from service due to unsatisfactory performance. The evidence shows that the Applicant¡¯s performance was rated as either ¡°partially meets performance expectations¡± or ¡°does not meet performance expectations¡± since 2015, except for one cycle in which she ¡°fully met¡± expectations. The Applicant only rebutted one of these performance evaluations, which, however, was upheld by the rebuttal panel. Accordingly, all of these performances evaluations are binding on the...

It is incumbent on the Applicant to allege and to prove that her complaint was not handled following the applicable procedures and/or that there was a failure to properly assess relevant and available evidence, which led to a manifestly unreasonable decision. After a careful review of the case file and the evidence before it, the Tribunal has not identified any procedural irregularity committed by OIOS in its preliminary assessment nor any wrongdoing. Instead, the Tribunal finds that the decision to close the complaint without any further action was well?substantiated and in line with the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.

There are incidents on which the Applicant had no direct knowledge. Consequently, he has no standing in filing a complaint of prohibited conduct in relation to them.

It was inappropriate for the Director, DA, ±¬ÁÏÍøOG, to play an instrumental role in the constitution of the investigation panel considering that he was the decision-maker in relation to one alleged incident, was a material witness in the investigation and was highly likely to be interviewed by the investigation panel. Several factors cumulatively gave rise to a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest on the part of a panel...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that, in light of the circumstances of the case, the Panel [appointed to undertake a fact-finding investigation into Duparc et al.¡¯s complaint], had failed to consider whether the limits of the managerial discretion were respected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducted an investigation de novo and thus exceeded its authority and usurped the Secretary-General¡¯s sole and exclusive authority in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision based on the investigatory Panel¡¯s report, it did not draw any...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision not to short-list the Appellant was an internal step within the selection process and not an administrative decision and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have only received her application against the selection decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective in that the Appellant did not clearly define the grounds of appeal as required under Article 2. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal on the basis that the Appellant was self-represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s allegation that the case management of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the re...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to re-examine the judgments of the former Administrative Tribunal in judgment No. 1047, Helke (2002) and judgment No. 1122, Lopes Braga (2003). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage did not amount to an award of punitive or exemplary damages designed to punish the Organisation and deter future wrongdoing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member suffered stress based on his submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed no error in awarding compensation for...