Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que l'ancienne fonctionnaire ne s'¨¦tait pas acquitt¨¦e de la charge de d¨¦montrer que le jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¦tait entach¨¦ d'irr¨¦gularit¨¦s, se contentant de faire valoir que la d¨¦cision n'¨¦tait pas ¨¦quitable.Au contraire, le TANU a estim¨¦ qu'en ne renouvelant pas son engagement ¨¤ dur¨¦e d¨¦termin¨¦e, l'administration avait agi l¨¦galement et ¨¦quitablement.
Le TANU a soulign¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'administration s'inscrivait dans le cadre d'une v¨¦ritable restructuration qui impliquait, entre autres mesures, de red¨¦finir les priorit¨¦s des ressources existantes par la r¨¦affectation, le...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s action of gifting a sex toy to a subordinate was inappropriate, as it transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of the subordinate, even if the event took place in private. Whether solicited or not, it had the potential to negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that by doing so, the staff member failed to uphold the required standard expected of her role as a manager.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed no error in finding that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

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...

Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande de r¨¦vision n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦e. Le TANU a consid¨¦r¨¦ qu'¨¦tant donn¨¦ que tous les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s par la requ¨¦rante comme nouveaux avaient toujours ¨¦t¨¦ en sa possession et qu'elle ne les avait jamais mentionn¨¦s ou n'avait fait aucun effort pour les faire produire au cours de la proc¨¦dure judiciaire, ces ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve n'¨¦taient pas nouveaux pour elle.
Le TANU a en outre not¨¦ que les observations de la requ¨¦rante r¨¦p¨¦taient ou compl¨¦taient essentiellement les m¨ºmes arguments que ceux qu'elle avait soulev¨¦s devant le TANU dans les proc¨¦dures...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in...

Le TANU a not¨¦ que la requ¨¦rante avait d¨¦pos¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision quelque trois mois apr¨¨s avoir pris connaissance des faits d¨¦cisifs identifi¨¦s dans la demande. Le TANU a estim¨¦ que la demande avait ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦e au-del¨¤ du d¨¦lai de 30 jours et qu'elle n'¨¦tait donc pas recevable.

Le TANU a constat¨¦ qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, l'un des documents n'existait pas au moment de l'arr¨ºt du TANU. Le TANU a ¨¦galement not¨¦ que le document n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦cisif pour parvenir ¨¤ une d¨¦cision dans l'appel et que, pour cette raison, la demande constituait une tentative de r¨¦examen de l'appel. Le TANU a...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded...

Mme Ocokoru a interjet¨¦ appel.

Le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'appel. Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que Mme Ocokoru n'avait pas d¨¦pos¨¦ son recours dans le d¨¦lai applicable conform¨¦ment ¨¤ l'article 7(1) du Statut du TANU et n'avait pas demand¨¦ de suspension, de renonciation ou de prorogation des d¨¦lais. Le TANU a conclu que le recours ¨¦tait donc prescrit et non recevable ratione temporis.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ qu'en tout ¨¦tat de cause, le TANU n'avait pas commis d'erreur en d¨¦clarant la requ¨ºte irrecevable ratione materiae au motif que les arguments soulev¨¦s par Mme Ocokoru avaient d¨¦j¨¤...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

? titre pr¨¦liminaire, le Tribunal d'appel a rejet¨¦ l'argument de M. Wan selon lequel le fait qu'il n'ait pas ¨¦t¨¦ repr¨¦sent¨¦ devant la commission de recours de l'OACI l'a consid¨¦rablement d¨¦savantag¨¦, ce qui a eu une incidence directe sur l'issue de l'affaire.

S'agissant du fond de l'affaire, le Tribunal d'appel a confirm¨¦ les conclusions de la Commission de recours selon lesquelles il avait ¨¦t¨¦ prouv¨¦ de mani¨¨re claire et convaincante que M. Wan avait commis deux fautes qui justifiaient l'imposition de la sanction de licenciement.Sur la base des documents pr¨¦sent¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral...

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...

En ce qui concerne l'application pr¨¦tendument discriminatoire et arbitraire de la r¨¨gle 105.3 du personnel de l'OACI concernant les heures suppl¨¦mentaires, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la Commission de recours n'avait pas commis d'erreur en constatant que M. Alvear n'avait pas identifi¨¦ de d¨¦cision administrative sp¨¦cifique susceptible de recours, et qu'elle n'avait donc pas commis d'erreur en rejetant sa demande.

En ce qui concerne la plainte de M. Alvear selon laquelle il n'avait pas re?u les r¨¦sultats de la classification de son poste, le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la Commission de...

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...

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'administration de ne pas poursuivre l'enqu¨ºte sur les all¨¦gations de M. Lutfiev contre son ancien chef de cabinet ¨¦tait une d¨¦cision qu'elle ¨¦tait en droit de prendre ¨¦tant donn¨¦ que l'ancien chef de cabinet n'¨¦tait plus un membre du personnel de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA.

En outre, le Tribunal d'appel est convaincu que la d¨¦cision du DT de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA annulant la cessation de service de M. Lutfiev a ¨¦t¨¦ prise ¨¤ tort. Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif a appliqu¨¦ une m¨¦thodologie erron¨¦e pour examiner les motifs de la cessation de service de M.

Lutfiev et n...

The Appeals Tribunal found that the Administration¡¯s decision not to investigate further Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s allegations against his former Chief of Staff was one which it was entitled to make given that the former Chief of Staff was no longer an Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff member.

Furthermore, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision rescinding Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service was decided erroneously. The Dispute Tribunal applied the wrong methodology to its consideration of the grounds for Mr. Lutfiev¡¯s separation from service and failed to undertake what is known as the four...

D'embl¨¦e, le Tribunal d'appel a not¨¦ que Mme Monasebian n'avait fourni que peu ou pas de raisons ¨¤ l'appui de sa demande d'anonymisation de l'arr¨ºt, si ce n'est une d¨¦claration g¨¦n¨¦rale selon laquelle les informations relatives ¨¤ son affaire ¨¦taient sensibles. Le Tribunal a estim¨¦ que l'anonymisation n'¨¦tait pas justifi¨¦e en l'esp¨¨ce et a rejet¨¦ sa demande.

Le Tribunal d'appel a estim¨¦ que le Tribunal n'avait pas commis d'erreur en concluant qu'il existait une pr¨¦pond¨¦rance de la preuve que Mme Monasebian avait adopt¨¦ un comportement qui avait cr¨¦¨¦ un environnement de travail intimidant...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...