Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law, and followed binding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-936 by Mr Diallo. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s direction in...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that AJAB¡¯s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute or the Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and ICAO. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and WMO dated 20 January 2020. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...
