±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s request that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was without merit and that the request for management evaluation was filed in an untimely manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that informal resolution efforts had been taken which could extend the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had not requested such an extension of the time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly decided that the request for management evaluation was not receivable as it was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

Regarding the lateral moves, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact, that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of ¡°lateral move¡± in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that ¡°consideration¡± of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the written test had taken...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Worsley¡¯s appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that OSLA¡¯s decision to not represent Ms Worsley was based on her disability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Ms Worsley did not show how OSLA¡¯s actions affected her rights or her case, as she was simply repeating arguments that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT previously considered in its judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment with regard to its decision that the right of staff members to receive assistance from OSLA does not amount to a right to be represented by OSLA.