Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant¡¯s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was impossible for the Appellant¡¯s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the requirements for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that failing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (by audio conference) as verified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF decision before appealing to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.