Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/028, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/029 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/076). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is competent to review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation of the contested administrative decision before filing his application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that requesting management evaluation is a mandatory first step in the appeal process and held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that there are no instructions in which form management evaluation should be requested had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that staff members are presumed to know the regulations and rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily rejected the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings after finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional submission. With respect to the alleged error of procedure in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s proceedings by way of summary judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s issuance of summary judgment was appropriate since there was no dispute about the material facts and that the question of receivability is a matter of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the Appellant did not meet her burden of proving that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error of procedure when it decided to issue a summary...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT summary judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...