Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 701 - 710 of 1006
    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1058, Nadeau

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1059, Bezziccheri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT can be revised, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1013, Belsito

    A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1014, Chhikara

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1015, Handy

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for proper...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1020, Dibs

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-798 by Mr. Dibs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1022, El Shanti

    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...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1012, Heftberger

    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...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1024, Nyawa

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT intervention...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1040, Robinson

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law, and followed binding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...