Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had to be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the nature of the contested decision before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not entirely clear. On the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on this point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to deal with the Appellant¡¯s claim of harassment and discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...

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 considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

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 appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made several errors of law when it found Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not accord any deference to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made...

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...