Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.
The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as ¡°pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from¡± which ¡°was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request¡± to investigate the allegations of discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the allegation that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in terms of Article 10(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal and held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency¡¯s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly rejected the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...
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...
