Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant¡¯s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s and/or the AJAB¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reason upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT intervention...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. 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¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

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.

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.