±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the ±¬ÁÏÍø and WMO dated 20 January 2020. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

Scope of judicial review The Tribunal entertains applications against administrative decisions de novo and without regard to the outcome of the MEU review. Accordingly, the Tribunal will not adjudicate the Applicant¡¯s arguments in relation to the Internal Oversight Office (IOO¡¯s) responses to her request for management evaluation. Whether the contested decision is lawful Whether the Applicant is eligible to receive a termination indemnity In the present case, the Applicant joined WMO on 1 July 1999. Her normal retirement age is thus 62 pursuant to art. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. When she...

The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...

Neither party has¡ªrightly so¡ªdisputed the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s findings in Al Shakour that the United Nations Secretary-General was bound by the General Assembly¡¯s endorsement and adoption of the ICSC¡¯s determination regarding post-adjustment for United Nations staff in Geneva. In doing so, the Tribunal further notes that, as relevant to the present case and following Al Shakour, the General Assembly provided no alternatives for the United Nations Secretary-General on how to compute the relevant post-adjustment payment than by following the ICSC¡¯s determination. Accordingly, as relevant to the...

Scope of the review The original decision not to grant the Applicant a permanent appointment was notified to her in January 2019. The communications between the Applicant and the Administration in this regard in April-May 2020 were merely reiterations of a challenge and of the original decision. These communications did not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines. The Applicant failed to challenge the decision made in January 2019 within the statutory time limit and, therefore, the Tribunal rejects the application with respect to the Administration¡¯s refusal to grant a permanent...

The Administration held sufficient consultations with staff on the restructuring of WMO Secretariat by: announcing the restructuring sufficiently in advance, holding meetings with staff representatives and setting up a consultation mechanism to hear staff concerns. The Administration had the Applicant, a permanent appointment holder whose post was abolished, undergo a pre-screening interview for a vacant post along with all the other pre-selected candidates. In so doing, the Administration failed to afford the Applicant priority non-competitive consideration. The Tribunal ordered the...