±¬ÁÏÍø

Regarding Contested Decision #1, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member did not seek timely management evaluation of the refusals of his request to transfer. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that there is no provision in the Staff Regulations and Rules addressing changes or transfers of posts for medical reasons. Additionally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the medical information at those relevant times recommended early medical retirement, not a transfer. Regarding Contested Decision #2, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that there was no evidence that the staff member ought to have been appointed to the post in...

The Secretary-General appealed arguing that the Organization had no obligation to make all reasonable efforts to place the staff member in available suitable posts, as he only had an FTA and that such obligation was meant only for those who had continuing or permanent appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that staff members should be ¡°retained¡± in an order of priority favouring, first, those with continuing appointments; second, holders of FTAs of more than two years¡¯ duration who were recruited competitively; and third and finally, other FTA holders. In the instant case, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found because...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍø-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and, consequently, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the administrative decision could not be regarded as a ¡°disguised termination¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member was not separated from service on 29 May 2019, and he in fact continued to retain his full position, rights, and entitlements of a staff member until the expiry of his FTA on 30 June 2019.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed and found the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the administrative action was lawful and rational in furtherance of the operational needs of the Organization. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the administrative decision was not tainted by improper motives, and that the staff member had failed to meet her burden of proof of proving otherwise. Finally, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusion that the additional commute of 17 km was not overly onerous, yielding to a disproportionate measure by the Administration.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

The Secretary-General appealed on the premise that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly substituted its decision for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed and found that the reason ±¬ÁÏÍøDT rescinded the decision was because it suffered from incoherence, i.e. the reasons provided for singling out the staff member with a shorter extension of his FTA changed over time and were not supported by the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted the ex post facto reasons for selecting the cross-appellant rather than one of the other staff members provide an inadequate justification, especially in light of the incoherence and the fact that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and found that the evidence on the record supports the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the staff member¡¯s absence from 18 January 2017 to 26 July 2018 was unauthorized, as she did not provide a duly authorized medical certificate or other justification for her failure to report to work. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the refusal of the Medical Services Division (MSD) to certify the staff member¡¯s sick leave request after 18 January 2017 was reasonable and that the MSD was the competent technical body to evaluate medical certifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member had the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the present case does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the identification of candidates was available to the assessors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Krioutchkov has failed to rebut the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding regarding the legality of the CRB process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law, and its judgment is consistent with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT misapplied the law of mootness and erred in law in reaching the impugned Judgment, in that it omitted to follow an important passage in Kallon relating to the cautious approach in applying the law of mootness.

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law or fact in accepting estimates from three different hospitals in Turkey, although one such estimate dated in December 2015 (close to the date of the interventions in Geneva, November 2015) and the other two estimates were submitted much later in October 2019. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the December 2015 estimate was a fair estimate of the medical costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that a more favourable exchange rate (1 USD : 3 TRY), which was applicable in 2016, should have been applied to the October 2019 estimates. The Tribunal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s appeal was defective because she did not specify which errors were committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in arriving at its Judgment. However, given that the staff member was not legally represented, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT went on to review the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it held that the staff member did not have any right to be appointed and that the recommendation from the HR Head did not mature into an enforceable right. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no entitlement to receive overtime pay since overtime must be authorized in advance and duly recorded...

The Applicant¡¯s complaints were remanded once more to the Respondent for a proper investigation in compliance with the regulatory framework. The Respondent is to provide the Applicant with a copy of her interview transcript and summary (if any) prepared by outside provider and used in the prior investigation.

The Applicant has not shown that the negative employment decision had any direct adverse consequences on her contract. The Applicant¡¯s argument that the decision was used by the Administration not to renew her temporary employment is without merit. She has not adduced any evidence to substantiate her claim. On the contrary the Respondent has shown that the temporary employment expired at the end of the maximum 364 days offered in the contract. The Applicant has failed to convince the Tribunal that the decision not to renew her temporary employment was a direct consequence of the decision from...

Receivability The Applicant¡¯s appointment was extended beyond its expiration date to allow her to exhaust her medical leave entitlements. The Applicant¡¯s entitlements, had her contract been extended, would be calculated on a different scale from that applied during her sick leave. Moreover, should the contested decision be found unlawful, the Applicant could be entitled to receive compensation for the harm caused by the unlawful decision under art. 10.5(b) of the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s Statute regardless of any entitlements she may have benefited from during her sick leave. The application cannot...

The Tribunal finds that the recovery of CHF2,838 constituting financial loss occasioned to the Respondent through the Applicant¡¯s private phone calls is not a relevant consideration to the determination of the proportionality of the sanction. This is because the recovery is not a disciplinary measure within the meaning of staff rule 10.2(b)(ii) which expressly clarifies that recovery of monies owed to the Organisation is a not a disciplinary measure. The Applicant has failed to show that he deserves a more lenient sanction than the one imposed. His impecuniosity, resulting from the sanction is...

The Tribunal held that with respect to the decisions of June 2018 on deductions on account of child support and 24 September 2018 on recording the Applicant¡¯s status as ¡°divorced¡±, the application is not receivable. The Tribunal rescinded the decision of 18 September 2018, because as admitted by the Respondent in his response to Order No. 190 (NBI/2020), this administrative decision had been issued in error. All other pleas were rejected.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation on 24?July?2019 was time-barred, and thus the present application is not receivable ratione materiae.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Applicant¡¯s allegation that she was performing Administrative Assistant functions at the relevant time is supported by her 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 e-PASes, Personal History Profile and Letters of Appointment which were the relevant documents for purposes of the comparative review process (¡°CRP¡¯). The Applicant has successfully rebutted the presumption of regularity by proving through clear and convincing evidence that the CRP was unlawful. The administration violated its own regulations and rules governing its conduct. The...