±¬ÁÏÍø

This application does not meet the requirements of art. 12(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and art. 30 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Rules of Procedure. There is no need to clarify the meaning of Judgment Ocokoru ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2015/004 since it was fully implemented years ago. Furthermore, the grounds submitted by the Applicant as a basis for interpretation have already been clearly and unambiguously determined by this Tribunal previously. Consequently, the Tribunal dismisses the application in its entirety.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the Dispute Tribunal had been guided by the appropriate factors in making its award of compensation in lieu. Specifically, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had considered the seniority of the staff member, the type of contract he held and the chance of being offered equivalent positions, the reasons for termination, and months of service until retirement age. In light of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s deference to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in such matters, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found it to be an adventure in futility to re-examine these factors.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that the length of the Temporary Job...

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is challenging an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with his terms of appointment or his contract of employment and is not challenging the legitimacy of General Assembly resolution 66/234. The application is accordingly receivable.

The General Assembly resolution, Staff Rules, and the ICSC principles and guidelines are clear and unambiguous. These rules stipulate that GS staff wishing to apply for a professional post must first pass the G to P exam unless exceptional approval for a waiver is granted.

Staff at level FS-5 and...

The Secretary-General filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law when it interpreted Staff Rule 6(3)(a) as allowing Ms. Barbulescu as a commissioning mother in a surrogacy to be entitled to maternity leave contrary to the clear and unambiguous Staff Regulations and Rules. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT enlarged the scope of Staff Rule 6(3) to an extent that it made a policy decision which is in the purview of the Secretary-General. Further, the Dispute Tribunal erred in making factual findings without evidence.

The Appeals Tribunal however held that the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to cancel the appointment process and initiate a new process was one which fell squarely within the discretionary authority of the Administration. Given that a new appointment process had been embarked upon, there was no longer any administrative decision alleged to be in non-compliance with AAP¡¯s terms of appointment or contract of employment. Any dispute concerned with the initial appointment process was moot in the sense that there was no live issue in dispute which required determination by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly dismissed AAP¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in holding that the Administration misinterpreted one of the requirements for the position advertised in JO 127555, namely ¡°experience in leading large teams¡±, as requiring experience of direct supervision of 10 people or more. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the vacancy announcement allowed for a such contextual interpretation as the literal meaning of ¡°lead¡± is very general and does not, by itself, allow for an exact comprehension of the intended meaning. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was reasonable for the Administration to interpret the requirement of...

The application was filed without being preceded by a timely filing of a request for management evaluation and the subject matter complained of does not include an administrative decision. The Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the final non-selection decision, which was required to contest it. She only requested management evaluation of the decision not to invite her to a competency-based interview.

The Applicant seeks to contest a preliminary step in a selection process, which can only be challenged in the context of a final selection decision. It is a premature contestation of...

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member¡¯s separation. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2022/124 and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless observed that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rightfully refused to...