±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was appealed by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed the scope of judicial review by reviewing the facts and concluding that there was sufficient evidence of inebriation but concluding there was a lower level of alcohol consumed based on the breathalyzer result. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the imposition of the sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity was disproportionate to the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to fully assess...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer¡¯s representative and the original...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA adhered to the principles of equality...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law or fact in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the whole reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was misconstrued and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA vendor. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in the absence of a university degree, the Appellant did not satisfy the academic criterion stated in the vacancy announcement, but he was long-listed, which meant that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA took his experience into consideration and decided that his additional years of experience justified his pre-selection. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in fact in considering that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not examine whether the experience of the Appellant could offset his lack of a university degree. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to limit the short-list to seven candidates with university degrees was reasonable and...

The Applicant did not seek management evaluation until several years after he was excluded from the lists of staff eligible for the conversion of their appointment. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Applicant did not challenge the implied decision in a timely manner.

The Tribunal recalled that a request for management evaluation is a sine qua non for bringing an application except in cases where the advice was obtained from technical bodies, as determined by the Secretary-General, or of a decision taken at Headquarters in New York to impose a disciplinary or non-disciplinary measure. In the present case, there was no decision imposing disciplinary or administrative measures. The Applicant did not request management evaluation of any administrative decision related to the conduct of the investigation. The failure to seek management evaluation before...

The Tribunal dismissed the application as irreceivable. The Applicant had requested the Tribunal to order a rescission of the decision to permanently withdraw his MINUSCA¡¯s driver¡¯s permit. The Tribunal noted that this request had been satisfied by the Administration. The relief having been fully granted, there was no longer a justiciable matter before the Tribunal, thus rendering the application moot.

Based on these very general principles, and in the lack of any further instruction or guidance¡ªat least, as relevant to the present case¡ªthe Tribunal sets out the following basic minimum standards that must apply when administering a written test: a)Generally, while the Administration enjoys a broad discretion on how to administer a written test, it must nevertheless do so in a reasonable, just and transparent manner otherwise, a job candidacy would not receive full and fair consideration. b)As also stated in the Manual, any assessment must be undertaken on the basis of a ¡°prescribed...

Regarding the question of whether material facts were sufficiently established, the Tribunal concluded that they were sufficiently established except the allegations that the Applicant instructed other staff members to provide false information. The parties disputed whether the Applicant was a supervisor as charged. The Applicant did not fall under the category of ¡°supervisor ¡° as per the ±¬ÁÏÍøON Security and Safety Service (±¬ÁÏÍøON/SSS) SOP No 13. Undisputedly though, the Applicant carried out team leader functions and the ±¬ÁÏÍøON/SSS Daily Orders which assigned the Applicant to provide ¡°security...

The Applicant¡¯s request for management evaluation of 5 February is vague and fails to articulate the precise administrative decision he is contesting. It ambiguously mentions the recruitment processes for Job Openings (JOs) 108789 and 109656, the termination of his continuing appointment and the lack of effort by the Organization to find him a new post. Since the application makes no mention of the selection processes for JOs 108789 and 109656, the Tribunal will not address it. Consequently, the Tribunal¡¯s review will focus solely on whether the claims against the termination of the Applicant...

The Applicant was required to submit a request for management evaluation. He did not do so within the expressly stipulated timeframe. Where the management evaluation was requested late, the result was as if it were not requested at all.

The evidence shows that the Applicant, on 6 June 2019, signed a contract with ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA that was governed by the terms and conditions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA individual contactors. Accordingly, the Applicant, not being a staff member of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA or any other entity of the United Nations, has no locus standi before this Tribunal. The present application cannot be entertained.