±¬ÁÏÍø

There may be cases that take longer to be heard by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and that this may provide a reason justifying compensation beyond the two-year limit. This was such a case. Compensation in lieu of rescission was set at two years and 2 months¡¯ net-base salary. The Applicant¡¯s claim for compensation was excessive. It equated to over 13 years of net-base salary plus payment of a number of entitlements. Apart from being well outside the scope of compensation that might properly be ordered by the Tribunal, the Applicant¡¯s claim was predicated on the mistaken belief that but for the unlawful dismissal he...

An offer of employment and its acceptance amount to an agreement entailing rights for the Applicant: The contract by which an individual acquires staff member status can only be concluded validly on the date at which an official of the Organization signs the staff member¡¯s letter of appointment. However, as the Appeals Tribunal held, ¡°this does not mean that an offer of employment never produces any legal effects. Unconditional acceptance by a candidate of the conditions of the offer of an appointment before the issuance of a letter of employment can form a valid contract, provided the...

±¬ÁÏÍøDT considered that, in the circumstances of the Applicant having informed ±¬ÁÏÍøDTthat he will not file an application because ±¬ÁÏÍøDT lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the proceedings have been abandoned. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT cloased the case for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the Applicant is not a ±¬ÁÏÍø staff member and therefore does not have access to the Tribunal. Status of STL staff members: While article 12 of the STL Statute explicitly provides that the ¡°Registrar shall be a staff member of the United Nations¡±, there is no such reference for other high-ranking officials such as the Judges or the Prosecutor, nor for any other ¡°Lebanese and international staff¡± of the STL. From the wording of both the Statute and the Agreement between the United Nations and the Lebanese Republic on the establishment of the...

Regarding the first VA, the Applicant was not short-listed for interview, as only 30-day candidates as per ST/AI/2002/4 were. As to the second VA, the Tribunal deemed established that the president of the panel, without consultation with the other two members, already told the Applicant at the end of his interview that he would not be recommended as he did not speak Russian, a competency which was desirable but not required by the VA; he also told him immediately after the interview that he had little chance of being selected within the service he was working in. Concerning the third VA, which...

The Tribunal finds that the Administration erred in considering that no classification decision had been taken. It further finds that the Applicant duly followed the procedure foreseen in ST/AI/1998/9 and that she was deprived of her right to a remedy. Turning to the question whether such breach resulted in loss of a chance to have her post classified at the P-4 level, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant has not shown that she suffered any actual material harm, given the uncertainty surrounding a possible approval of the new budgetary post by OPPBA and the General Assembly. However, it...

The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant failed to satisfy the overall test for a suspension of action with respect to that decision. With respect to the decision to require her to take a break in service prior to her placement on a temporary appointment, the Tribunal found that the three requirements of art. 2.2 of the Tribunal¡¯s Statute were satisfied. The Tribunal found that, for staff on fixed-term appointments who are being reappointed under temporary appointments following the expiration of their fixed-term appointments, there is no requirement, in law, to take a break in service...

Confirmative decisions: When a staff member repeats the same request to the Administration, only the first decision denying it is subject to appeal; the time limits for appeal start running from that first decision. Subsequent refusals are confirmative decisions which do not have the effect of restarting the running of time limits.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the head of department was not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who had been recognised as qualified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error of law or fact in ruling that the contested administrative decision was marred by irregularity and ordering the Appellant to be paid compensation equivalent to six months¡¯ base salary as an alternative to the rescission of the improper decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that, in this matter, the first judge was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not for the head of department to intervene in the evaluation process conducted by the programme manager, the Central Review Body and, where applicable, the panel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the head of department is not entitled to drop a candidate from the list of qualified candidates and, consequently, from the roster of candidates who have been recognised as qualified. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Executive Director¡¯s actions disregarded Mr Verschur¡¯s right to benefit from the advantage of being included on the roster for a year and she...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by the Secretary-General of Order Nos. 30 (NBI/2011) and 33 (NBI/2011). Order No. 30 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension of action until 13 May 2011, beyond the date on which the management evaluation was completed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have granted a suspension until 13 May 2011 or until the completion of management evaluation if the latter was earlier. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error of law. Order No. 33 (NBI/2011) extended the suspension until the final determination of the case, and therefore beyond the completion of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member¡¯s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member¡¯s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and remanded the case to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the decision of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Appellant¡¯s adverse performance appraisals constituted a proper basis for the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in limiting the scope of his application to the non-renewal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concurred with the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal which held that unless the Administration made an express promise creating an expectancy of renewal, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member¡¯s fixed-term appointment...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it decided that the present appeal by a former staff member to have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍøOV premises was not among the listed grounds of jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and was therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the ±¬ÁÏÍøJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF correctly applied the ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF Regulations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err by failing to order the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...