±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, upheld the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on this point. On compensation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s offer of USD 1,000 was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s eligibility for ASHI should be determined based on the date of her recruitment to the ICTY in October 2006 instead of her appointment to ±¬ÁÏÍøAKRT in October 2009. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, under Staff Rule 4. 17, the date of recruitment that is relevant for determining the terms of appointment of a former staff member who receives a new appointment after separating from the Organisation is the date of the new appointment. In the staff member¡¯s case, her new appointment with ±¬ÁÏÍøAKRT was a re...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s retirement benefit from the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF including the monthly periodic pension benefit was not subject to taxation and/or payment of statutory deductions and that therefore, any challenge with respect to the application and meaning of the words ¡°gross¡± and ¡°net¡± was merely semantic. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASHI premium was a voluntary payment that was deducted by the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF at the behest of a beneficiary and therefore could not be treated as or deemed to be a statutory deduction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA¡¯s decision were...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ,for various reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT inferred that the Appellant claimed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the legal conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT strike certain paragraphs from it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

The Tribunal concluded that: the investigation was carried out in accordance with the correct procedures; the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence; the facts established amounted to misconduct under the staff regulations and rules and that the sanction imposed was not excessive. Due process and procedural fairness: The Tribunal rejected the Applicant¡¯s submission that the investigation into his actions should not have been commenced because there was no evidence of harm to the Organization. Pursuant to ST/AI/371/Amend.1, once there is reason to believe that a staff member...

Receivability - At the time of the contested decision, the Applicant was a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor does the Applicant fulfil the requirements of arts. 2.1(a) and 3 of the Statute of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. He therefore has no locus standi to challenge a decision of the Respondent before this Tribunal..

The Tribunal found the Applicant's reassignment was a proper exercise of the Secretary-General's discretion and dismissed the application. Reassignment of the Applicant: The Tribunal found that the relocation of the Applicant to Kuwait was prompted by administrative and humanitarian reasons based on space constraints in ±¬ÁÏÍøAMI in order to accommodate more humanitarian staff who were dealing with the influx of refugees from Syria. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the Secretary-General's exercise of discretion was not tainted by any improper motives. Payment of DSA, hardship and mobility...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s filing of an incomplete application met the time limits for filing an application set out in staff rule 11.4(a) and that as the incomplete application was filed in time, there was no requirement for the Applicant to request a suspension or waiver of the deadline.

The Tribunal found the application to be irreceivable, ratione materiae, since the Applicant failed to file a timely request for management evaluation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found no impropriety in connection with the successful candidate¡¯s lateral moves. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that whether or not the successful candidate had two lateral moves was not determinative in this case as the Applicant was not recommended for the post for reasons unconnected to the successful candidate¡¯s eligibility. The application was dismissed.

Consolidation of applications: The Tribunal concluded that consolidation would not have any effect on the parties¡¯ rights as the two applications are virtually identical and each party will have the opportunity to have its case fully considered both as to receivability and on the merits albeit in one judgment. Receivability of the classification decision: Noting that Fuentes ±¬ÁÏÍøDT-2010-064 and Fuentes 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-105 confirm that a failure to decide an appeal against classification of a post encumbered by the Applicant is an administrative decision which may be subject to review by the Tribunal...

The Tribunal found that the facts on which the sanction was based had not been established and the facts that were established did not legally amount to misconduct. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary measure imposed on the Applicant was unlawful ab initio and therefore a violation of his rights. Witness statements: The Tribunal concluded that the witness statements without averments of truthfulness could not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant solicited and obtained money from the five complainants in return for their recruitment as casual daily...

The Respondent asserted that the Application is not receivable because the Applicant was required to request management evaluation since the contested decision was not taken pursuant to the advice of a technical body under staff rule 11.2(b). The Tribunal found the Application to be receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøCB as a technical body: The Tribunal concluded that an earlier determination from MEU to another staff member regarding the status of ±¬ÁÏÍøCB (Determination A) represents the decision of the Secretary-General that ±¬ÁÏÍøCB is a technical body for the purpose of staff rule 11.2(b) until or unless it is...

Abolishment of the Applicant¡¯s post: The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant¡¯s post in Jordan was indeed abolished and that the abolition was part of a genuine organizational restructuring. The Tribunal also concluded that the Administration acted fairly, justly and transparently in dealing with its staff members when they had to move back to Baghdad. The Applicant was provided with sufficient and written notice of the Respondent¡¯s restructuring strategy.

Receivability: Confirmative decisions do not reset the clock with respect to statutory time limits; however, if, despite having issued an earlier decision denying benefits, 1) the Organization undertakes a new verification procedure under the terms of the applicable rules at the time of said earlier decision (in this case ST/SGB/2013/4), 2) that process is not finalized, and 3) a subsequent decision denying benefits is taken under a new set of rules (in this case ST/SGB/2003/14/Rev. 1), the latter decision constitutes a new, final decision, and statutory time limits start to run anew. Non...