Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute as to the applicable statutory provision governing the timeliness of the Appellant¡¯s application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or that management evaluation was not required as the Appellant was challenging a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione temporis, noting that the Appellant himself acknowledged that his application was untimely. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not waiving the time limit for him to file the application due to exceptional circumstances, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly applied judgment No. 2011...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding the Appellant¡¯s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant¡¯s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors in procedure, fact, or law and correctly dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an application against the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for management evaluation and she was not exempted from doing so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.