±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in affirming the JAB¡¯s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in assessing the damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the present case, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement in an amount equal to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the amount of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in the present case, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not recorded any reasons for holding that this was indeed an exceptional case, warranting an award higher than two years¡¯ net base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of full salary payable between separation and the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty since the staff member might have been separated from service on other non-disciplinary grounds. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would be adequate, fair, and reasonable to award compensation in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had accepted the conditions of the RLA, which stated that ¡°the loaned employee shall return to the releasing agency upon completion or termination of his assignment with ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID and that no offer of continuing employment shall be made to him by ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID without consulting the releasing agency¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had had a valid employment contract with WFP, and he did not fulfil the conditions for termination under that same agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant did not formally initiate the transfer procedure and/or termination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had...

To the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order acknowledged that the Appellant withdrew his application and granted the request for withdrawal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Order. In every other regard, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the arguments made by the Appellant as to the manner in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT granted the withdrawal request. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and went beyond its jurisdiction in effectively embarking on a consideration of the merits of the case and in speculating about the Appellant¡¯s motivation in bringing his application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ordered that the recital of ¡°Facts¡± in paragraphs 4 to 7 and ¡°Considerations¡± in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr Gehr¡¯s contention that the restructuring, although a legitimate exercise of managerial discretion, had been carried out arbitrarily to marginalize him. In accordance with paragraph 2. 4 of ST/AI/2006/3, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in its report, advised the Executive Director to conduct a functional review of all ±¬ÁÏÍøODC divisions, sections and units, and align them to the reconfirmed prioritized framework for action of the Office, including by reorienting human and financial resources if necessary. The JIU further recommended that the Executive Director take measures to...