Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member failed to provide any grounds for his appeal as he did not address the findings of the Appeals Board regarding the non-receivability of his application before the Board, and thereby failed to meet the burden of making a case on appeal. No arguments were made that would have permitted the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review whether the Appeals Board decision was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Board decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the President of the Council of ICAO, in taking the decision not to approve the appointment of the staff member to the post, had regard to relevant considerations: the staff member was negatively assessed by the interview panel and the assessment centre, and had serious weaknesses in areas of vision and other competencies which were critical skills for ICAO. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reasons provided by the President accorded with the facts.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that, although the President discussed the matter with some members of the panel, these discussions had not...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal dismissed Mr. Wan's argument that he had been placed at a considerable disadvantage, directly impacting the outcome of the case, by the fact that he had been unrepresented before the ICAO Appeals Board.

Turning to the merits of the case, the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Appeals Board that on clear and convincing evidence two counts of misconduct had been proved to have been committed by Mr. Wan which justified the imposition of the sanction of dismissal. On the material presented by the Secretary-General to the President, the...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization¡¯s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal, without prejudice.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal concerned the administrative decision of 8 November 2021 in respect of his separation from service during certified sick leave.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that a separate appeal by Mr. Radu, first before the Appeals Board and now before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, concerned that same administrative decision of 8 November 2021 on its merits, i.e. the disciplinary measure of separation from service for the alleged misconduct (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Case No. 2023-1804).

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the impugned Appeals Board Decision in this case was not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICAO Appeals Board implemented internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the Appeals Board no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ICAO Secretary General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process. It further found that while it might have been open to ICAO to consider using the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for resolution of staff member disputes, it was free not to do so and cannot be criticised for doing as it did. It concluded that the Appeals Board¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to that extent, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

Noting the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...