±¬ÁÏÍø

Appeals dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

Appeals dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

Appeals dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first noted that neither party disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the Administration and found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member¡¯s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...

Appeals dismissed, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable, the ICSC decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar¡¯s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was erroneous. Additionally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍø-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and, consequently, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT actually rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that it was moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.