Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT and the moving party. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to make a request for correction of her current contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it could not step outside its statutory remit and examine the merits of the Appellant¡¯s claim for payments under her current contract when she had made no request for a review regarding it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that JAB did not err in finding the Appellant¡¯s claims of 30 December 2015 for revision of her step level under the previous contract as not receivable since the Appellant submitted her request more than a year from the date on which she received her first salary or ¡°initial payment¡±...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...