±¬ÁÏÍø

The Secretary-General's appeal challenged the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT order referring the maternity leave decision for accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by adjudicating the issue as it had already been adjudicated in an earlier judgment. In adjudicating the same issue a second time, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence since the maternity leave decision had not been challenged before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in the instant case; and the earlier judgment, which was affirmed on appeal (rendering it res juidcata), held that the application in relation to the maternity leave decision was not receivable ratione temporis and...

AAA appealed and the Secretary-General cross-appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that AAA could not be required to report a rape allegation ¡°which he heard from another person who attended court¡± and that Section 4.1 of ST/AI/2017/1 ¡°does not apply to an individual who merely hears second-hand about a case of misconduct since much of what such a person has to report would be hearsay and possibly misleading and devoid of the kind of detail the rule is seeking to elicit from the staff member¡±. This approach erroneously imposes a requirement that the staff member must have a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that its task was to review whether any or all the fees, for which Mr. Awad requested reimbursement, constituted admissible expenses, either as ¡°enrolment-related fees¡± or ¡°tuition¡±. The wording of Section 3.1(a) and (b) of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, their systematic context with other provisions of ST/AI/2018/1/Rev.1, the goals of the General Assembly and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s recent jurisprudence should be taken into account. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there was no ¡°plain meaning of enrollment¡±. While the word ¡°enrolment¡±, in...

Mr. Mukeba's application for revision did not fulfil the strict and exceptional criteria established by Article 11 of the Statute.

Mr. Farhadi appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Farhadi's contention that the successful candidate had not been subject to the mandatory vetting procedure. The mere indication by the Hiring Manager of the fact that ¡°[b]oth candidates have worked with women and trade previously¡± under the rubric ¡°Reference check¡± was not sufficient to conclude that there were no actual reference checks. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that more importantly, reference checks normally take place only once the selection has been concluded, and in the present case, Mr. Farhadi was not selected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den¡¯s decision when he elected to be on the local-currency track was irreversible unless the pre-conditions as set out in Paragraph 31(b) and 38(e) of the PAS were met. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Erg¨¹den did not meet those pre-conditions and that, as the decision of the Standing Committee was in observance of these provisions, there was no basis to grant Mr. Erg¨¹den the right to revert to the USD track. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no proper basis to compel the Chief Executive of Pension Administration to suspend Turkey from the two-track system. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr. Valme¡¯s claim that the allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse had not been established against him, on grounds that any consideration about the complaint of sexual abuse was beyond the scope of the case, because his application concerned other prohibited conduct that came to light during the investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in Mr. Valme¡¯s contention that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to consider the totality of the evidence and referred to it in a selective way, thereby displaying bias. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was inherent to the principle of judicial persuasion that courts and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramos. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in order for conduct to constitute sexual harassment, apart from an ¡°unwelcome sexual advance¡±, it is required that the behavior in question ¡°might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offence or humiliation to another, when such conduct interferes with work, [¡­] or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment¡± and that ¡°[w]hile typically involving a pattern of behaviour, it can take the form of a single incident¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Mr. Ramos¡¯ conduct as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...