±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that because the possible error in the assessment of the facts by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no bearing on the outcome of the case, the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal could not be received.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that although an Ivorian Court judgment, finding the staff member guilty of fraud, had not been cited in the sanction letter, this was inconsequential because it was clear from the record that he had been aware of the judgment when he applied for the position and completed the PHP specifying ¡°no¡± to the question whether he had ¡°ever been indicted, fined or imprisoned for the violation of...

Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

The Tribunal must ensure that there is an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment or his or her contract of employment, as provided for in art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute. Such decision must be unilaterally taken by the Administration, be directed to the staff member, and have direct legal consequences for the staff member.

The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah¡¯s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (±¬ÁÏÍøMOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected Mr...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2022/022.

AAF appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. As the Secretary-General had...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first reviewed the Secretary-General¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that Mr. Loto¡¯s application was receivable with respect to the entire period for which he was on ALWOP. The Secretary-General contended that Mr. Loto had timely challenged only an initial ALWOP decision, and not a subsequent decision when the ALWOP was extended. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s receivability argument, finding that the Secretary-General was estopped from raising it on appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that Mr. Loto had filed a request for management evaluation of the second ALWOP decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

The Tribunal held that the Applicants had produced no evidence to support the premise that heterosexual couples would be awarded more days of leave than same-sex couples. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claim of unequal treatment had not been proven by the Applicants. Accordingly, the application was denied.

The Applicant was required to submit his application in 90 days. When counting from 12 October 2022, the period ended on 9 January 2023. The Applicant submitted his application on 10 January 2023. In the circumstances the application was deemed not receivable ratione temporis.