±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal examined the following issues:; Issue No. 1 Classification exercise and lateral move requirements; The Tribunal noted that prior to the post being advertised it had been classified as a; ¡°geographical¡± rather than a ¡°language¡± post. As a consequence, the lateral move requirements, which apply to geographical but not to language posts, would have been to the Applicant¡¯s disadvantage. Following its classification as a language post this requirement was removed and staff at P-4 level, including the Applicant, were eligible to apply notwithstanding any lack of lateral moves.; Clearly...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was contesting the decision not to investigate her complaint under ST/SGB/2008/5 against the Chief, Languages Services (¡°Chief LS¡±), and fifteen of her colleagues and, following the investigation against two individuals, the decision to take managerial action against only one of the staff members she had complained about.; Receivability; Since the Applicant failed to request timely management evaluation of the decision not to investigate her complaint against the Chief, LS, and fifteen other staff members,; notified to her on 30 March 2017, these claims in...

The present case concerned the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a locally recruited staff member outside his duty station while travelling on private business. As the conditions for reimbursement and the extent of the coverage are detailed in the Medical Insurance Plan (¡°MIP¡±) Rules, the Tribunal¡¯s role essentially consisted in examining whether ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR committed any error, in law or in fact, in the interpretation or the application of these rules.; The Tribunal identified the following issues:; Was the Applicant entitled to the benefit of the stop-loss provision?; The Tribunal...

The distinction between reimbursement of 100 per cent of admissible educational expenses for a child with a disability who attends a regular education institution depends on whether the necessary special arrangements are provided by the educational institution or not. If the institution does not provide such arrangements, the special teaching expenses are reimbursed at 100% but the educational expenses are reimbursed at the regular rate of 75%. Sec. 14.1 has to be read in conjunction with sec. 12 of the ST/AI/2011/4, which defines admissible expenses for the special education grant as...

The Applicant stated in his application that he had not requested management evaluation of the impugned decision. The Applicant cannot now make such request, as it was required to be made 60 days after he was notified of the contested administrative decision (see staff rule 11.2 (c)). That is, 60 days after 18 April 2017, which was the date of the impugned decision. The time to request management review thus expired on 17 June 2017, over a year before the application was made (19 June 2018); Given the Applicant did not seek management evaluation of the contested decision, the Tribunal had no...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT further found that the Applicant also failed to submit her application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within the prescribed time period. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDP provided incorrect information to the Applicant regard the ¡°suspension¡± of its response to her management evaluation request, which may have contributed to the Applicant¡¯s late filing of her application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that ignorance of the law cannot be invoked as an excuse and staff members are deemed to be aware of the rules governing their employment, including those relating to the administration of justice. The...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not received the fullest regard due to him as an internal candidate. The Tribunal found it appropriate in this case to award USD5,000 as compensation for the loss of opportunity and USD4,000 for moral damages. Related

It is within the Administration¡¯s discretion to reassign a staff member to a different post at the same level. Such a reassignment is lawful if reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case and if it causes no economic prejudice to the staff member. The responsibilities must correspond to the level, the function must be commensurate with the staff member¡¯s competence and skills and the staff member must have substantial experience in the field. An Organization has to act fairly, honestly, justly and transparently towards a staff member. If an Organization offers a staff member a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s submissions were valid in most aspects. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the award of 21 months¡¯ compensation was excessive as it was not reasonable to assume that Ms Belkhabbaz¡¯s fixed-term appointment would have been extended for longer than one year, finding that an award of 12 months¡¯ remuneration would be adequate compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by awarding pecuniary damages relating to Applicant¡¯s placement on sick leave with half pay. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by awarding...

Having decided that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,¡± as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Applicants¡¯ request for one. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and no application had been made to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

The Appellant sought an order for reinstatement, an increase in the compensation awarded, and an increase in the amount awarded by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for moral damages. The Appellant also contested the failure ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s failure to make a referral for accountability to the Secretary-General under Article 10(8) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decided that Article 10(5)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which corresponds to Article 9 (1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, does not confer on the Tribunal the power to enforce the reinstatement of a staff member¡¯s contract in a non-renewal case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, held that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reopening a matter that had already been the subject of a final judgment of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence and erred in law by making its own determination of Mr Sarwar¡¯s harassment complaint, emphasising that the role of the Tribunal is not to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it rescinded the contested decision to close the matter underlying the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint, and when it ruled that there was no need for a new...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claim in Appellant¡¯s Appeal was not initially brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred by excluding periods of temporary service from the calculation of consecutive service, as required by Staff Rule 3. 13(a)(iii). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated and modified the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment by rescinding the contested decision, and directed the Secretary-General to make a decision in accordance with former Staff Rule 3. 13(b) in relation to the Appellant¡¯s application for mobility allowance.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that under the provisions of Staff Rule 1. 2(b), staff members must comply with local laws and honour their private legal obligations, including, but not limited to, the obligation to honour orders of competent courts. However, the ST/SGB/1999/4 legal framework has to be interpreted within the context of the authorizing Staff Rule 3. 18(c)(iii), which grants the Administration discretionary authority, as is reflected in the use of the word ¡°may¡± in it, to make a proper and fair decision, in cases of indebtedness to third parties, under the proviso that a deduction for this purpose...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that accounting for factors such as ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...