Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence was presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant¡¯s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Administration properly exercised its discretion to place the Applicant on administrative leave, considering an enduring reputational risk in light of the allegations relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an under-age girl, which were reasonably supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new Staff Rule 10. 4(c), which had not yet been enacted at the relevant time, was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s factual findings were open to criticism in that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s motion regarding the Appellant¡¯s claims impugning the AJAB¡¯s functioning as the ¡®Neutral First Instance Process¡¯ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant¡¯s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...