Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Both parties appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s ground of appeal was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the IMO Secretary-General¡¯s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, specifying that the Appellant¡¯s appeal should be reconsidered and...

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has: (a) exceeded its...