Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing in the applicable law in force at the time of the events which formed a basis for the Administration¡¯s practice of removing the candidates¡¯ names from the language roster once they had been recruited or placed against a position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the removal of a candidate from the roster prevented the Administration from evaluating and reassigning or selecting a candidate for a similar post in another duty station. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives...

On the Applicant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

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...

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 Appellant did not demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment was defective or that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the selected candidate met the minimum educational requirements and the work experience required for the job. Emphasizing the broad discretion of the Secretary-General and that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not manifestly unreasonable in deciding that the recommendation approved by the Secretary-General was based on an entire process and the experience of the candidates. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

As a first preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its RoP did...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Andrysek. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Ramsaroop, an appeal by the Secrteary-General and a cross-appeal by Miksch et al. While Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was reasonable for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to hold that Miksch et al had a significant chance of selection for the posts, it held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by assessing the lost opportunity for Mr. Miyashiro, Mr. Miksch, Mr. Ramsaroop and Mr. Mazioui as enduring until their retirement from the Organization, and compensating accordingly with a cap of two years¡¯ net base salary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that these applicants had a further opportunity for promotion in the second selection...