±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeals against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute authorizes ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to order suspension of a contested decision only ¡°during the pendency of the management evaluation¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and upheld ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request that her challenge of the first recruitment process be placed in abeyance until completion of the second recruitment process was unusual and rightly declined by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no right of the Appellant was infringed upon, as she had not been denied an opportunity to compete for the post in question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and had to determine: whether her marriage to the late former staff member was legally valid at the time of his separation from the Organisation in 1998; and whether the Organisation created a legal expectancy of acknowledgement of benefits to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s alleged divorce from his first wife was not legally valid because the authorities pronouncing it were not competent and did not apply the law under which the marriage had been concluded. It follows that his second marriage to the Appellant was not valid at the...

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr James¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that Mr James was not eligible for the P-3 position both because he did not take the required examination and because of the lack of required qualifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly dismissed Mr James¡¯ appeal that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not awarding him compensation for loss of opportunity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the cross-appeal and set aside the order for compensation for distress. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the compensation was not requested, there was no evidence of damage or injuries, and Mr James acknowledged on appeal...

The Secretary-General appealed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgments rejecting the staff member¡¯s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judges. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further rejected the staff member¡¯s request that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...

From the moment that the new Executive Secretary took up his functions at ESCWA, the Deputy Executive Secretary was no longer competent to decide, on 8 August 2007, to reassign the Applicant. Indeed, there is no documentary evidence that he had received delegation of authority from the Executive Secretary to take the contested decision, which is thus illegal. However, on 16 August 2007, the Executive Secretary confirmed the decision taken on 8 August 2007 by his Deputy. This new decision is legal but it does not have the effect of regularizing ex post facto the decision of 8 August 2007...

The Tribunal¡¯s findings were that the Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given that the Applicant failed to abide by staff regulation 1.2 (b) and former staff rule 110.1, the Tribunal concluded that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the Applicant, requested on two occasions to make the necessary corrections to her application, had failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the application finding that the Applicant is no longer interested in pursuing her case.

None.

The facts alleged as justifying termination could not make the contract void but only voidable. The Administration is barred from arguing that there was no contract because it affirmed the contract when it was in full possession of the relevant facts by proceedings under staff regulation 9.1.Cancellation and effect of staff regulation 9.1: Under the general law the parties are bound by any condition in the contract relating to cancellation, rescission or repudiation. The only mode by which separation can be effected is pursuant to regulation 9.1 or pursuant to disciplinary procedures. These...

Receivability: Although the applicant accepted the assignment, this does not mean that all decisions taken by the Administration with respect to the applicant must be deemed correct and lawful. The Organization¡¯s decision to base its calculation of the applicant¡¯s salary on her net income constitutes an administrative decision affecting her contractual right to proper remuneration and the case is therefore receivable. Salary calculation: ST/IC/2007/24 and ST/AI/2000/1 articulate that all G-level staff will be receiving an SPA to the P-2 level. Pursuant to provisional staff rule 3.10(d), the...

Break in service: The Tribunal has not found a policy on mandatory breaks in service and no document has been produced recording it. The respondent has failed to demonstrate a consistent application of the practice of enforced separation between temporary contracts. Further, there was a deliberate delay in progressing the appointment of the applicant which was to her detriment. Compensation: The applicant is to be placed in the position as if there had been no such break in service in May 2008. The manner in which the applicant was treated, aggravated by the exercise of an abuse of power...

The Respondent had sufficiently substantiated his allegations against the Applicant. It also found that due process had been afforded to the Applicant. Given the gravity of the allegations, the Tribunal decided that the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant was proportionate to the nature of the charges.

The applicant had a real and substantial chance of appointment of around 50 percent and that the appointment would have lasted until his 2010 retirement date. USD2,000 nominal compensation awarded for loss of the chance to work in New York.

There was sufficient material before the Secretary-General, after a fair and impartial investigation, to reach a finding of serious misconduct. The sanction of summary dismissal was fair and proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The applications are dismissed.

The Tribunal takes note that the Applicant has failed to file his application within the deadline given to him in the Tribunal¡¯s Order of 22 January 2010 and even beyond. It also notes that the Applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation as to why he did not comply with the Order of the Tribunal. By his behaviour and attitude the Applicant has displayed a singular blatant ignorance of a court order. His conduct is one of contempt of the Tribunal. This attitude does not befit persons who like the Applicant come to seek justice and a vindication of their rights before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal is entitled to examine the entire case before it. In other words, the Tribunal may consider not only the administrative decision of the Secretary-General imposing disciplinary measures but also examine the material placed before him on which he bases his decision in addition to other facts relevant to the said material. The rush by the investigators to produce a prejudiced report dripping with innuendos, riddled with ridiculous findings and which completely and unjustly tars the Applicant with a brush of criminality must be loudly condemned by this Tribunal.

The question of waiver of time limits applicable to transferred cases is governed by Article 8.3 of the Statute rather than by Staff Rule 111.2(f). A request for an administrative review or management evaluation is mandatory in the present case. With regard to section 1.4 of ST/SGB/2009/11, the Applicant cannot be considered to have satisfied the requirement to submit a request for management evaluation as provided for in Article 8 paragraph 1 (c) of the Statute.