±¬ÁÏÍø

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

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s...

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

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

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 Tribunal observed that there was no dispute with respect to the material facts of the case. The Applicant was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process while employed at ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, had his appointment terminated for misconduct, and did not disclose this information in his PHP when applying for the position at the ±¬ÁÏÍøLB, ±¬ÁÏÍøGSC.

The Applicant's attempts to justify his conduct were both illogical and not grounded on evidence.

False claims and misrepresentations of qualifications on PHPs constitute serious misconduct for violating the legal framework. The Applicant's conduct was not an...

The Tribunal noted that there was no submission on record indicating that the contested decision imposed adverse consequences on the Applicant. The Tribunal, thus, found that it was not established how the contested decision adversely affected the Applicant¡¯s employment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the jurisdictional constraints did not allow it to hear and decide the application in the absence of a particular facts-based case. Therefore, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant contended that he was separated for non-disciplinary reasons, while the Respondent provided proof indicating that the termination decision was made on 11 March 2022 and rose from an incident on 2 October 2019 in which the Applicant allegedly drove a United Nations vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and damaged that vehicle.

The Tribunal thus held that: a) to the extent that the termination decision was for reasons other than disciplinary, the Statute of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal required that, to be receivable, the Applicant ought to...

The initial decision to deny the Applicant EGT for the 2021-2022 academic year was modified following management evaluation. The Applicant was granted partial EGT for the 2020-2021 and 2021 2022 academic years, which resulted in a pro-rated recovery of the Applicant¡¯s EGT for the 2020-2021 academic year and the granting of half of his EGT for the 2021 2022 academic year.

Pursuant to staff regulation 3.2(a), staff rule 3.9(g), and sec. 9.1 of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the Applicant is entitled to one round trip for her daughter during each academic year between her educational institution and his...

The Applicant was found suitable for available positions. Indeed, for one job opening, he was one of the eight candidates short-listed and convoked to interview. By shortlisting him, the Administration tacitly acknowledged that he was deemed suitable for the position; per Timothy ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2017/080, as a continuing appointment holder facing termination, the Administration was obliged from that point to consider his candidacy on a preferred, non-competitive basis.

The Tribunal found that the Administration failed in its obligation to make good faith efforts to absorb the Applicant into a new post...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s decision or the reasons for it.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that there was also...

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...