Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant¡¯s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s and/or the AJAB¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and WMO dated 20 January 2020. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that AJAB¡¯s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute or the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and ICAO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, specifying that the Appellant¡¯s appeal should be reconsidered and...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has: (a) exceeded its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant¡¯s rights. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s Judgment dismissing the Appellant¡¯s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.