±¬ÁÏÍø

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Jin¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding no prejudice since, by his calculations, the decision to score Part 2 perfectly for each candidate resulted in a larger interview pool which was disadvantageous to him. The Appeals Tribunal found that this argument was speculative, predicated on one hypothetical counterfactual outcome, and failed to meet Mr. Jin¡¯s burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of selection.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the circumstances in Mr. Jin¡¯s case were fundamentally and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first rejected his contention...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) ¨Cspecifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination ¨C in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT or the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede¡¯s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT relating to Mr. Kebede¡¯s rating during the interview for the post. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ¡°Partially Satisfactory¡± rating was an assessment of how Mr...

Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. If the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General¡¯s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal¡¯s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his ¡°abuse of power¡± claim because it was not pled in his...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2025/001.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the staff member received full and fair consideration for the Temporary Job Opening, whether it erred in concluding that the non?selection decision was untainted by bias, discrimination, or other extraneous considerations, and whether it erred in declaring certain claims not receivable for failure to request management evaluation. It recalled that its role on appeal is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that DIOS had no decision-making authority in addressing the substance of his complaint of retaliation and that it undertook its investigation merely as a step in the investigative process that did not amount to a reviewable administrative decision.

Similarly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that it had not been established that retaliation had occurred, and its subsequent closure of the file without further investigation...