±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law and/or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment at the end of the probationary period was a lawful exercise of its discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that a performance-related justification for the non-renewal was properly given in the form of his electronic Performance Evaluation Report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities in the assessment of the Appellant¡¯s performance were not sufficiently substantial or consequential so as to rebut...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant¡¯s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable as the Appellant had partially prevailed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and was entitled to file an appeal to pursue the modification, annulment, or vacation of the impugned judgment. Noting that the crux of the matter before it was the issue of the exchange rate used to calculate the repatriation grant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the correct rate was applied because the applicable rate was that which applied on the date of receipt of the proof of relocation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their ¡°key¡± answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara¡¯s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT under Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute by not asserting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General which was limited to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission, which he claimed was excessive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Secretary-General did not contest Ms Sarrouh¡¯s claim for compensation before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, he could not raise the issue on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of in-lieu compensation was based on the uncontested evidence before it and as such, its findings were not unreasonable and it did not commit any error in its assessment of the compensation award. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the absence of any error of law or manifestly...

The Tribunal held that the application was moot and not receivable. Accordingly, the application was rejected. On issue one, for an order for execution of default judgment, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not obtained a default judgment as he alleged. The 14 December 2009 Order that the Applicant considered a default judgment merely directed the Respondent on the procedural requirements for applying to re-enter the proceedings, and which indeed happened with the Respondent filing a reply on 25 January 2010. On 7 June 2010, the Tribunal proceeded to Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2010/105 in which...

Establishment of the facts which form the basis of disciplinary measures The Tribunal emphasized that the establishment of the facts was not contested by the Applicant. The Applicant admitted to having taken, on four occasions and without authorisation, a total of four beehives that belonged to ±¬ÁÏÍøOG and brought them back to his home, between October 2015 and February 4 2016. He also admitted to having them repainted, for having removed their nameplates and for wanting to install them in his garden. Do the established facts constitute a fault? The Tribunal was of the opinion that the removal of...

The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s claim that he was underpaid between July 2004 and 31 May 2005, was not receivable. The Tribunal was satisfied that in the period in relation to which the Applicant alleged underpayments by the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA Administration, the Applicant was not a staff member appointed by the Secretary-General. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to persons who are staff members or former staff members of the Organization. Therefore, the Applicant had no locus standi regarding the claims derived from another status, but not a staff member. With regard to the non-renewal...

The Tribunal found that the Administration did not respect its obligation pursuant to staff rule 9.6(e)(i) and 9.6(f) to retain the Applicant and the Applicant¡¯s correlative right to be retained in any available suitable post at her level (G7 step 10) or at a lower level in ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR NY, or at her Professional level or lower in the parent Organization. The Tribunal granted the Applicant¡¯s claim in part, rescinding the contested decision and ordering the Respondent to retain the Applicant with retroactive effect from 31 December 2016 in any current suitable available post(s), or in alternative, the...

If the Applicant had a duty of care in the given context, it would rather have been not to carry his personal iPad or wristwatch in his run bag, nor to attempt to retrieve them from his residence in the midst of a dangerous emergency evacuation. On the contrary, had the Applicant done so, this may well have amounted to negligence.; The Tribunal finds therefore that, in the exercise of its discretion, the Administration did not take into account, or give due regard to all the aforesaid circumstances surrounding the loss of the Applicant¡¯s property. In particular, there was no requirement...

The instruments invoked by the Applicant did not lend support to the contention about illegality of the abolition of his post occasioned by the fact that a post of a similar functionality would have been subsequently created within ECA. No violation of procedures envisaged in these instruments has been shown. Specifically, neither of these instruments obligated ES/ECA to carry out redeployment or classification of existing Regional Advisor posts in priority over creation of new posts at ECA. The Tribunal found no abuse, arbitrariness or unfairness in the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post...

The Tribunal found that several of the Applicant¡¯s claims were not receivable, granted his claim for assignment grant in part, and rejected his claims for security evacuation allowance; post adjustment; and compensation for financial hardship.

Receivability Immunities have been incorporated into the terms of appointment of United Nations staff members¡ªincluding at the highest level of the Organization¡¯s legal order and ever since its inception¡ªthereby becoming part and parcel of their status and conditions of service. Furthermore, a decision to waive the immunity of a given staff member has evident¡ªpotentially dramatic¡ªeffects on his or her legal situation. Thus, the contested decision meets all the features of the definition of an administrative decision adopted by the Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the...

The contested administrative decision was communicated to the Applicant on 9 August 2016. The Applicant had 60 days thereafter to request management evaluation. In other words, the Applicant had until 8 October 2016 to submit a management evaluation request. From the record, the Applicant requested management evaluation on 8 February 2017 and therefore did so out of time. It follows that the Applicant¡¯s claim was not receivable, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the case.

Where a member of an assessment panel is conflicted, s/he cannot take part in the selection process. It is irrelevant for the outcome of the present case, that the Head, PMCS, and the Director, DESS, confirmed in their evidence to the Tribunal that they did not feel any bias or resentment against the Applicant. Indeed, a subjective feeling is irrelevant and the question of impartiality or bias has to be analysed from the point of view of a fair-minded objective observer. It is also irrelevant whether the Applicant had a subjective feeling that one or more of the Panel members were biased...

Receivability The application registered under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2015/182, insofar as it is directed against the decision to discontinue the post encumbered by the Applicant, is not receivable ratione materiae. In his application registered under Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2016/039, the Applicant contests his separation from service effective 2 March 2016 and the non-renewal of his appointment, as a result of the abolition of his post. This is an administrative decision resulting from the restructuring and the abolition of the Applicant¡¯s post. Merits Procedural regularity The noncompliance with a...

No legal implementation of an expired decision: The Tribunal underlines that, after its expiration a decision cannot any longer produce legal effects and therefore cannot be implemented and / or extended and that any such action constitutes itself a breach of procedural fairness.

The decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment is often closely linked to the Organization¡¯s broader discretion on how to organize its services. In that respect, the Tribunal notes that in times of scare resources, managers bear particular responsibilities for making sound management decisions, which implies making an assessment of services needed at a given time in a given department, and to avoid to unnecessary expenditure of public money with which they are effectively entrusted. Any post facto assessment of these matters is only relevant to the extent that it is able to demonstrate...