Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested Memorandum was not an administrative decision as the Appellant failed to identify how it was affecting her terms or conditions of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested Memorandum concerned a general delegation of authority and, therefore, was a decision of general application.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.
Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the OAI recommendation in its investigation report that disciplinary action should be taken against the staff member did not constitute an administrative decision. Moreover, the recommendation of OAI was not a ¡°decision¡±. It was an intermediate recommendation and thus did not have a direct, legal or adverse effect. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, likewise, the decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge the staff member with misconduct did not constitute an administrative decision because it did not have an adverse impact on his rights under the contract of employment. The...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found not receivable Ms. Raschdorf's application with respect to the non-renewal decision and the ABCC¡¯s decision given Ms. Raschdorf's failure to request management evaluation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that contrary to Ms. Raschdorf's contention, the non-renewal decision was not taken subsequent to advice from a technical body. As to the ABCC's decision on whether the claim was time-barred, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that decision was not based on a consideration of a medical evaluation but was concerned with the timeliness of the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly pointed out that the only remedy requested by the staff member in his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the rescission of the administrative decision not to transfer him. Only now on appeal does the staff member raise other claims and additionally requests payment of all salaries and benefits from the date of termination to the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, including pension benefits and compensation for the material and moral harm inflicted on him, caused by harassment, mistreatment, and unlawful termination. His new requests on appeal cannot be accepted by the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...
