±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at ±¬ÁÏÍøODC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that, as a result of the Secretary-General¡¯s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a ¡°Message of the Day¡± was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...

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 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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did have a legal basis to define the administrative procedure and decisions subject to review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in considering that the Applicant was contesting not only the decision not to submit her classification appeal to the Classification Appeals Committee but also the final non-classification of her post to the P-4 level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the chances of the post being classified at the P-4 level or higher as requested by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the staff member was unlawfully...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not shown that the Secretary-General of IMO was required, under the IMO staff regulations and the staff rules, to make available to a federation of international staff associations from different organisations an IMO staff member, who was elected to a high office, for all or part of the term. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reference in the appeal to Staff Rule 108. 1, concerning election, composition, and competencies of the staff committee, did not apply in the case. As to the question of inter-agency cost-sharing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could only establish that this had to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the complaints against the Appellant were very serious and intolerable for any employer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the case against the Appellant stood substantiated and corroborated and the evidence sufficiently supported the charge of improperly soliciting and receiving money from local people in exchange for their recruitment and service as ±¬ÁÏÍø staff. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that during the teleconference the Appellant had produced two impostors as witnesses, who testified that they had lied to the investigators and made false allegations against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076) and Wu (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-042), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...