±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s deference to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in such matters, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of procedure in its case management that affected the outcome of the case. The Appellant had a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against him. The additional witnesses that he wished to call would have been of little assistance to his case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the alleged conduct was established by clear and convincing evidence and that the Appellant¡¯s actions, i.e., making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature in social settings, amounted to sexual...

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 dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

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 held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of procedure such that it affected the outcome of the case in not holding an oral hearing and relying significantly on the OAIS investigation report to corroborate the truth of the events alleged by the Complainant, when there was no direct witnesses to the alleged misconduct and all the witnesses relied upon by the OAIS investigators obtained their evidence and information from the Complainant. As such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that their evidence was hearsay evidence and that the prejudice to the Appellant in admitting and relying upon this evidence...

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...