±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff...

The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it, supplied by the Applicant himself, showed that the contested decision was taken on 17 April 2011 and the Application was filed in 2025.

Based on art. 8.1(d)(ii) of its Statute, the Tribunal found that the application was manifestly time-barred. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the application was not receivable ratione temporis and the application was rejected.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred by failing to grant the remedy under Article 10(5)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute after it had found that the disciplinary decision was unlawful. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by refusing to rescind the contested decision on the grounds that the staff member had abused the judicial process. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the case to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for determination of the appropriate remedy.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the former staff member had manifestly abused the judicial process by filing forged documents before that Tribunal. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member bore the burden of proving that the Secretary-General¡¯s failures to address both the discriminatory policies of the host country and the alleged attempt of the law enforcement authorities of that host country to recruit him, constituted unilateral decisions taken by the Administration, which applied to him individually, and had direct legal consequences on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member could not meet this burden because these issues fell within the realm of diplomacy, are subject to the rules of...

Having reviewed the parties¡¯ submissions and the evidence on record, the Tribunal defined the issues for determination as follows:

a. Whether the Applicant had a realistic chance of being selected; and

b. Whether the Applicant suffered any financial loss due to the contested decision.

Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that there were irregularities in the selection process and recommended that the selection exercise be redone. The Under Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (USG/DMSPC) had also...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had a medical condition requiring attention which impacted his ability to return to work, and he had consented to the Independent Medical Examination and had not challenged those records before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor on appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if ST/AI/2019/1 were applicable to ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR staff members or taken as a model of just practice, it would not have rendered the Independent Medical Examination improper.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no basis to overturn the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that there had been no evidence of bias or conflict of interest in either the medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT expressed serious concern about the lack of a sufficient record of reasons supporting the choice of the selected candidate over the staff member at the time of the contested decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender and geographical considerations were unevenly applied in the selection exercise, positively assessing the British male while ignoring or discounting that the staff member was an Indian female. Contrary to Staff Regulation 4.4, in which the fullest regard should be given to internal candidates, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that her ±¬ÁÏÍø experience was used to disadvantage her. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also...

1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant¡¯s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant¡¯s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.

2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant¡¯s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether...