±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found the procedure laid down in the Staff Regulations and Rules was not properly followed, as such the Secretary-General¡¯s exclusion of the staff member from the selection process was not legal, rational, procedurally correct, or proportionate. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT firstly held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it ruled that the invitation e-mail respected the advance notice requirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reasoned that the day of the event (the receipt of the email) cannot be counted in computing the number of days required to give advance notice for a test. As such, by requiring at least five working...

Regarding Contested Decision #1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found because...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍø-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and, consequently, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that the reason ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.