Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076) and Wu (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-042), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to that extent, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Simmons¡¯ appeal and the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred when it determined that compensation of USD 500 was reasonable compensation for the procedural breaches, which occurred regarding her performance appraisal for 2007-2008, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT placed undue weight on Ms Simmons¡¯ omissions and/or actions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the compensation awarded for this breach was manifestly insufficient. With respect to Ms Simmons¡¯ claim that she did not receive full and fair consideration regarding Post 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasised the importance of performance appraisals and noted that there appeared to be a pattern of delays in completing those of the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the present circumstances of the case, the award of USD 3,000 was manifestly insufficient and increased the compensation to three months¡¯ net base pay. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal to the extent that it pertained to compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal regarding the compensation award of six months¡¯ net base salary for the irregularities in the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the present case substantially differed from Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076), which the Secretary-General relied upon; had Mr Kasyanov been selected, it would have been a mere lateral move for him without any change in salary and status. Contrastingly, Mr Sprauten¡¯s selection would have been a move from a temporary appointment to a fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law...