±¬ÁÏÍø

The administrative instruction ST/AI/2011/6 (Mobility allowance), which superseded ST/AI/2007/1 (Mobility allowance), was applicable to the Applicant¡¯s request for mobility allowance submitted in January 2012. ST/AI/2011/6 included the requirement of five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system, which in the present case was not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not eligible because she did not meet one of the requirements for payment of the mobility allowance, namely five years of continuous service in the United Nations common system.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable since, in accordance with art. 8.4 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT cannot waive the time limit to file an appeal, more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rejected the application as irreceivable, for he only requested management evaluation of the two decisions years after he knew, or should have reasonably known, of the Administration¡¯s inaction.

Receivability - The Application was found not to be receivable as the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements of arts. 8.1(b)(ii) and 8.3 of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal..

Interpretation of art. 11.3(c) of Appendix DArticle 11.3(c) is ambiguous. Pensionable remuneration scales are adjusted regularly and there is no explicit statement or guidance in Appendix D to indicate the relevant or operative date for assessing the pensionable remuneration at grade P-4, step V in any given case.Past practice¡­it is clear from the afore-stated email that the ABCC Secretary¡¯s personal experience of the consistent practice as at 21 June 2013 spanned a mere period of two years, and that in his experience, this practice has been used without exception. The statement does not...

The Application is not receivable pursuant to arts. 8.1 and 8.4 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and in accordance with the Appeals Tribunal¡¯s ruling in Terragnolo 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-517. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the merits of the case. Given the nature of the defects in the pleadings prepared by her Counsel, including the failure to observe basic legal and procedural requirements within the United Nations regulatory framework and Staff Rules, Counsel may wish to review the bill of costs, if any.

The Applicant argued that the decisive fact in support of his application for revision was the alleged perjury of the complainant during the hearing on the merits of Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/GVA/2011/047. The Tribunal found that the audio recording of the hearing did not, and could not, amount to and/or contain new decisive facts unknown to the Dispute Tribunal at the time Judgment ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/181 was rendered for it contained all the information and testimony heard by the respective Judge before adjudicating the matter, and his judgment was based on the testimony given by the complainant. The Tribunal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Fedorchenko¡¯s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors of fact or law by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT had before it an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/017. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-963 was a final judgment and therefore the Appellant¡¯s case was res judicata, which meant that the Appellant was precluded from raising his claim again. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made no error in finding the Appellant¡¯s application manifestly inadmissible and dismissing it without referring it to the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held as unsustainable the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law when it considered his application was an application against judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-363. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the five years¡¯ experience requirement was arbitrary and not based on any proper consideration, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, absent any proper legal or factual basis upon which to impugn the five years¡¯ experience requirement, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no function in substituting its judgment for that of the Administration in determining the criteria for the selection of S-3 officers, and in doing so, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in deeming the...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application for confidentiality. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that the Senior Human Resources Officer did not have the appropriate authority to take the contested decision and that such power lay only with the Director of Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the e-mail from the Senior Human Resources Officer conveyed a clear and definite administrative decision with direct legal consequences for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the subsequent response from the Director of Administration...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, in agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit on different grounds, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT award of compensation to Mr Pirraku. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the issues surrounding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion should not have been presented to, or addressed by, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues regarding Mr Pirraku¡¯s non-promotion were the subject of a settlement and release agreement reached through mediation and, as such, were not subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination was the execution of the settlement agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...