±¬ÁÏÍø

The Tribunal, referring to O¡¯Hanlon, (which was not before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT), stated that, ¡°This Tribunal interpreted the Inter-Organisation Agreement Concerning Transfer, Secondment or Loan of Staff Among the Organisations Applying the United Nations Common System of Salaries and Allowances to require that service in the releasing Organisation will be counted as service in the receiving Organisation. The Inter-Organisation Agreement interpreted that O¡¯Hanlon was remarkably similar to Article 5. 1 of the IAMA, which pertains to service credits for staff who transfer under the IAMA. Under the rationale...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in assessing whether the publication complained of constituted an administrative decision, correctly determined that the Appellant had not identified any terms or conditions of his former employment which had been violated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, in reaching its decision, correctly assessed the publication of the President¡¯s Order against the definition of an administrative decision and was correct in finding that both the determination that a ruling on a request for recusal should be issued in the form of an order or of a judgment and the decision to publish such rulings on...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in its determination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no legal basis for ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to bind the Administration to a 90-day statutory time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not necessary to remand the case to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for consideration of the merits as the issue was one of law, namely, whether the Administration was entitled to revoke the indefinite appointment granted to Ms Cranfield. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as of 30 June 2009, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held a contract of indefinite appointment which meant that she was not eligible for conversion to such an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/131. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Mr McIlwraith raised claims substantially similar to, if not identical to, those raised by the other International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members who appealed judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/131, as well as the staff members who appealed judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/129 and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/130. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since it had rescinded the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment against which the staff members appealed, the majority of their claims were rendered moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it's reasoning in Malmstr?m et al....

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the discrete issue of the ¡°Observations¡± of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General, despite being the beneficiary of a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in his favour, was entitled to appeal the observations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT overstepped the mark to a significant degree in effectively recording, as part of its judgment, ¡°Observations¡± in the manner in which it did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in light of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination on the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no jurisdiction to make ¡°Observations¡± as it did. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal and ordered that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals, one by Ms S. Nourain and one by Ms A Nourain, against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/142. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Ms A. Nourain¡¯s appeal as she was not a party to the proceedings and had no standing to appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts were not disputed; the misconduct had been established and so had its seriousness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could not say that the sanction of dismissal was unfair or disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal of Ms A Nourain as not receivable and the appeal of Ms S. Nourain on the merits.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASG/OHRM, and not the ICTY Registrar, had discretionary authority in matters of permanent appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ASG/OHRM had failed to exercise her discretion in a lawful manner in adopting a blanket policy of denial of permanent appointments to ICTY staff members rather than affording them the individual consideration to which they were entitled. Finding that the staff members were discriminated against and the impugned decision was legally void, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rescinded the impugned decisions and remanded the matter to the ASG/OHRM for consideration of retroactive...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that judgment No. 2013-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on that issue; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-173. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

The Tribunal found that the decision was lawful and that the case file did not allow concluding that it was tainted by favoritism for the selected, external candidate, inter alia, since the HM had initially recommended an internal candidate. Procedural irregularities: The decision not to convoke a shortlisted, internal candidate, who was not recommended by the HM, for a test and/or interview is in accordance with the applicable rules at ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR. ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR policy on comparative review is not applicable in cases of non-selection not involving the abolition of post. Discretionary authority: In...

The Applicant requested management evaluation as a result of the Registry of the Tribunal informing her that the absence of a request for management evaluation rendered her application incomplete. ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS reviewed and responded to her request and rejected it on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS also added that her claim for permanent appointment was out of time. This case has to be distinguished from Simmons ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/15 where the Tribunal found that the Management Evaluation Unit accepted the request for management evaluation after a written request to and response from the Applicant as to the existence of...

The MEU received the Applicant's request for management evaluation on 7 May 2013. The Applicant was therefore required to file her application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from 6 June 2013, namely 4 September 2013. The fact that the MEU sent a response to her request for management evaluation on 26 June 2013, after the 30 day time limit does not have the effect of extending the relevant response period. The Applicant did not submit an appeal with the Dispute Tribunal within the required time limit. The application is not receivable and is dismissed.

The Tribunal finds, inter alia, that no international labour standards or the United Nation¡¯s Charter were breached in the process of the implementation of the General Assembly resolution on the Harmonization of Conditions of Service for Internationally-Recruited Staff in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The Application is dismissed in its entirety Contract of employment - Article 2.1(a) of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute defines the contract of employment, as including: all pertinent regulations and rules and all relevant administrative issuances in force at the time of alleged...

The Applicant submitted that seeing that the Secretary-General of the United Nations does not have any authority over staff rules at the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, the Pension Fund is not precluded from employing a candidate that was rejected by OHRM. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and OHRM correctly applied the legal provisions by considering that OHRM was responsible for administering the selection process for a post located in the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF and that the Applicant was not eligible for the post due to the fact that he held a post at a G-4 grade whereas the post to which he had applied was at the G-7 grade, three...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT found that the decision of USG/DM was proper and lawful because the Applicant did not possess a University degree or the relevant experience as set out in the Vacancy Announcement (VA) of the post to which he had applied. While the VA required an Advanced University degree or a first level University degree with a relevant combination of academic qualifications as well as at least seven years¡¯ experience in administration and human resources or financial/ budget operations, the Applicant had none of these. Equivalence of qualifications to University degrees: Considering that United...

The Applicant¡¯s rights were respected in compliance with ST/AI/371. The Applicant failed to establish any irregularities in the procedure followed to impose the disciplinary measure on him. It was clear from the investigation that there were several irregularities in the supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. These irregularities were sufficiently disturbing to strongly suggest that the said invoices were falsified. The facts on the basis of which the Applicant was sanctioned were established. The Applicant¡¯s actions constituted professional misconduct within the meaning of the...