±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the time limit for requesting management evaluation against an administrative decision starts once a staff member has been notified of the decision in writing and in clear and unequivocal terms, which in this case was 18 September 2018. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed that the subsequent communications were mere reiterations of the prior decision, and a staff member cannot reset the time for management review by asking for a confirmation of an administrative decision that was communicated to him earlier. The date cannot be unilaterally set by the staff member, and as such, it cannot be the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, finding that the staff member¡¯s FTA was not terminated but rather, it expired in its own course. The Tribunal highlighted that a termination is initiated by the Secretary-General, under Staff Rule 9.6(a), and in the instant case, the staff member was not at all terminated on 30 May 2019. Instead, his FTA continued until its expiry on 30 June 2019, and until then, he retained his full position, rights and entitlements as a staff member of the Organization. The fact that the site was closed down, and the staff member was sent home with no work to do, is not...

The matter remanded to the Joint Appeals Board of ITLOS to be reconsidered and decided by a neutral first instance process

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member¡¯s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the staff member¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was erroneous. Additionally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that it found no error in the practice of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour¡¯s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in Mr Dabbour¡¯s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was nothing to indicate why ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in stating that it had no jurisdiction as Mr Kebede¡¯s claim concerned the internal affairs of the staff union, and therefore, an area protected from employer interference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that error was without consequence because Mr Kebede¡¯s claim for compensation was otherwise time-barred per Staff Rule 3.17(ii). ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also erred in finding that Mr Kebede¡¯s application for a transfer was not receivable for lack of jurisdiction.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reasoning that the letter of 24 November 2017 was unambiguous and unconditional about the separation of Ms Patkar upon the expiration of her appointment and agreed that the letter conveyed the final decision of the Administration not to renew her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the letter produced a direct adverse consequence which was not contingent upon the possibility of Ms Patkar¡¯s selection for any other position. Nor did the relevant provision in the letter that the non-renewal decision would cease to be applicable if Ms Patkar should be selected for...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Secretary-General has implied discretion to revoke benefits if a staff member does not satisfactorily furnish evidence of continued eligibility of existing entitlements, which may arise because of a change in circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it held that the legal frameworks for the two benefit systems are different and that the decisions made under the two legal regimes need not be consistent. Article 33 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøSPF Regulations does not require proof of a loss of earning capacity and the requirement of ¡°incapacitation¡± is a purely medical...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.