Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a response (or non-response) to a request for management evaluation is a decision or action of a complementary nature, lacking in the qualities of finality and consequence, and thus will not constitute an administrative decision that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or contract of employment as contemplated in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in its finding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae and that it hence lacked jurisdiction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the requirements for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to...

Noting that it was clear that the intention was to revisit the earlier decisions by conducting a review of affected staff, to decide the matter afresh, and to issue new notifications, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the June decision went beyond mere reiteration and constituted a fresh administrative decision impliedly substituting the previous decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its findings that the Application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for consideration on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was moot as the Appellant had already received the relief she requested, namely, the repetition of the selection exercise and her participation in it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT supported Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s recommendation that tests be protected against the possibility of editing or alteration and further recommended that the Organisation strictly complied with its legal framework, particularly with respect to not entrusting staff functions to consultants and/or individual contractors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT suggested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the Registries...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of law in deciding that the decisions not to nominate Ms Sarrouh for the IAAP¡¯s further consideration for the RC positions for which she applied in August and November 2013 were unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by conducting a de novo assessment of Ms Sarrouh¡¯s performance and exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by substituting its own decision for that of the Administration regarding the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General had the lawful authority to impose such a restriction, which objectively furthered the operational purposes of efficiency and short-term convenience and was proportional in its effects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of the Administration to limit the appointment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMISS staff members was reasonable and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination or improper motive. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Auda. Noting that the Administration had not failed to respond, albeit with inordinate delay, and then had set up a second fact-finding panel, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process and that the step Mr Auda was challenging was preliminary in nature. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested issue, namely the decision of the first fact-finding panel to delay, withhold and not submit its report and records, ceased to exist when Mr Auda was notified of the outcome of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld both Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the decision to close the investigation was improper as well as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s refusal to order rescission of that decision on account of the subject of the investigation having separated from the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s moral damages award on the grounds that the staff member did not present any evidence, apart from his own unsworn testimony to support the claim. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ¡°generally speaking, the testimony of an applicant alone without corroboration by...