Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective on the grounds outlined in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the Appellant¡¯s allegations and there was no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Appellant¡¯s gender or status of being on maternity leave factored into the decision not to renew her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment, namely the lack of funding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1055. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

On the request for the oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...

The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...