±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Standing Committee of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registry. Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it established that the staff member had improperly used his employer-issued laptop to access sexually-explicit websites and engaged in multiple instances of unauthorized outside activities. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he had not obtained approval to continue being the majority shareholder and director of a company.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it found that the staff member¡¯s activity constituted misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that his contributions to the overall running of the business were material. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' requests for an oral hearing on grounds that an oral hearing would not be expeditious and that in light of comprehensive written submissions nothing would be gained from hearing the Appellants¡¯ counsel in person.

The Appeals Tribunal found that in the absence of an express promise of renewal of the Appellants¡¯ fixed-term appointments, the Appellants did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The statements giving assurances to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS staff members were not made by a ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS official with...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member¡¯s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that upon each expiry of the applicant¡¯s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency¡¯s regulations and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender parity had not...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (±¬ÁÏÍøDP) on...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT.

In any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...