±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in light of the undertaking the Appellant had signed agreeing to work on the relevant education programme at the remuneration rate determined by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, his acceptance of that rate was not compatible with his subsequent claim for retroactive readjustments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the extra and external activities as a lecturer for physical education did not have the consequence to modify the job duties or title of the Appellant¡¯s post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT properly treated the question of the Appellant¡¯s additional work in light of PD A/3 related to the parallel education programme...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that there had been compliance with all procedural obligations for a temporary appointment with regard to having two persons on the interview panel and that the selection exercise was not required to be reviewed by a CRB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no duty imposed on the Administration to place unsuccessful candidates on a roster of pre-approved candidates. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of any discrimination or harassment or any basis for awarding the Appellant any damages for moral injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed no error of law, fact, or...

On receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable insofar as it related to the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF decision to deduct child support from the Appellant¡¯s pension in accordance with Article 45 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. As to the appeal related to repayment of a sum paid directly to the Appellant¡¯s estranged spouse as child¡¯s benefit under Article 36 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this aspect was not receivable for failure to challenge in a timely manner the decision and that his claim regarding due process with respect to direct payments under Article 36 had no merit. On the merits of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was fully apprised of the options available to him in relation to his pension benefits when his first contract with the Organisation ended in 1985. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s election to transfer his actuarial value to the Social Security Fund of the USSR terminated his contractual relationship with the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the right to restore past contributory service was only available to participants in terms of Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations, who had less than five years¡¯ previous contributory service and whose only available benefit was a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the central question before it was whether the Organisation complied with its obligation to Ms. El-Kholy to find her a suitable post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration failed in its obligation to demonstrate that all reasonable and good faith efforts had been made to consider the staff member for available and suitable posts within ±¬ÁÏÍøDP before terminating her permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s obligation to find a vacant and suitable post did not shift to the Appellant, regardless of the following: her...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

The Appellant appealed judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/113 (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2016-972) and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2016/114 (±¬ÁÏÍøAT Case No. 2016-973). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT consolidated the two appeals. The Appellant submitted a motion to withdraw her appeals following the successful conclusion of mediation discussions and the signing of a settlement agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled its jurisprudence that there was no reason to require a party to pursue an appeal he or she no longer deems necessary in the context of his or her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the motion to withdraw the Appellant¡¯s appeals and directed the Registrar to close both ±¬ÁÏÍøAT cases.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it concluded that the Administration¡¯s decision was unlawful and that the sanction imposed was disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the behaviour triggering it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it ordered rescission of the sanction and compensation in lieu thereof and substituted the sanction imposed for a lesser one. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had broad discretion to determine whether the assault amounted to serious misconduct and to determine the appropriate disciplinary measure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.