Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment dismissing the staff member¡¯s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that success before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, as the unsuccessful party before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant¡¯s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...