±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

Since the management evaluation in this case has been completed, one of the cumulative and mandatory conditions specified in art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute is not fulfilled. The Tribunal will therefore not examine if the remaining statutory requirements have been met, as the matter now lies moot.

Given the complexity and significance of the issues presented in this case, the assigned Judge requested the formation of a Three-Judge Panel, in accordance with Article 10.9 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Paragraph 4 of Practice Direction No. 1. Pursuant to the authorization of the President of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal, the following Judges were appointed to the Panel: Judge Sun Xiangzhuang (Presiding), Judge Joelle Adda, and Judge Sean Wallace.

The Tribunal defined the overall issues of the present case as follows:

Whether the Applicant wilfully misled the Organization

While there were many factual disagreements between the parties, including with respect to the details of the financial gains and dealings the Applicant was involved with, the Tribunal found that it was not necessary to resolve all those disputes during this exercise of judicial review. The Applicant admitted his extensive financial relationships with Mr. David Kendrick and that he failed to disclose these relationships to the Organization. These admissions were...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS staff members were not made by a ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS official with...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The Respondent discharged the evidentiary burden of minimal showing that the decisions regarding abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post leading to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and separation were lawful. The witnesses were credible, their evidence was cogent, reliable, consistent and corroborative. It was not contradicted in any meaningful manner. After examining the Applicant¡¯s and his witnesses¡¯ testimonies, the Tribunal was not convinced that the Applicant has made a clear and convincing case to rebut the presumption that the abolition of his post leading to the non-renewal of his...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met the requisite standard to rebut the presumption that the restructuring was genuine and therefore a valid reason for not renewing her FTA.

Mr. Nastase appealed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT's finding that it had not been established by evidence that the administrative decision to close his complaint was actuated by bias against him and was therefore unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Nastase's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the fact that in 2019, Mr. Nastase had filed a complaint against the CIOS alleging misconduct was unrelated to his performance issues. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that because these events were not part of his complaint of harassment and abuse of authority in relation to his performance...

The decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General¡¯s case and enable him to now...