Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion. 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the order of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to rescind the contested...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the lateral reassignment of a staff member, in this case, fell entirely within the discretion of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no evidence of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion in the appeal which could allow Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to pronounce on the discretion of the Administration. Finding no illegality and no evidence that the cancellation of the job opening had an adverse effect on the staff member¡¯s morale and professional reputation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO¡¯s Field Service Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the ¡°neutral first instance process¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant had failed to comply with a mandatory step of the first instance...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that pursuant to Article 30 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had very thoroughly considered the...

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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

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.