±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of WMO.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member was seeking to adhere to an agreed variation to his contract which, in return for foreshortening his period of employment, entitled him to a termination indemnity. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been correct in establishing a direct and negative effect, brought about by the implementation of the contested decision, as a condition for receivability.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that WMO¡¯s decision purporting to rescind its agreement affected the staff member¡¯s established career and personal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/124 and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rightfully refused to...

The Tribunal noted that, firstly, the Applicant does not contest an administrative decision taken by the Secretary-General as the Chief Administrative Officer of the United Nations. Secondly, FAO has not concluded a special agreement with the Secretary-General, under art. 2.5 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute, to accept the terms of the Tribunal¡¯s jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that it was not competent to examine the present application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that neither party had raised whether AAQ¡¯s application was receivable before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless held that because this was a jurisdictional question, it was obliged to raise the issue itself. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that pursuant to Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, the staff member was obliged to identify an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment. Further, pursuant to established case law, the administrative decision must have both a direct and adverse effect on the employment of the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

As a preliminary matter, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Neupane's contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it found that he was contesting the reassignment decision when in fact he was contesting the lack of his Field Central Review Board clearance and roster membership for the reassigned post. The application was quite unclear, and focused mainly on the question of regularity of the reassignment decision which was in line with Mr. Neupane¡¯s request for management evaluation challenging directly and clearly his reassignment. The issue of rostering was raised only as an argument to prove the alleged procedural irregularity of Mr...

The application is denied.