Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence showed that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 ¡°did not refer to any new fact or information¡± and was ¡°a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite acknowledging that under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the requirements for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...