Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence was presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s motion regarding the Appellant¡¯s claims impugning the AJAB¡¯s functioning as the ¡®Neutral First Instance Process¡¯ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant¡¯s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...
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 rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member because he worked with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS for over three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
