Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko¡¯s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ purposes was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko¡¯s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko¡¯s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant¡¯s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

On the Appellants¡¯ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent¡¯s Answer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants¡¯ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: insofar as the Appellants¡¯ sought to impugn the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s legal conclusion that the application was timely was erroneous. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not timely and not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in receiving the application and addressing its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General. On the receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred or exceeded its competence in finding the application receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument of non-receivability ratione temporis was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law and fact and exceeded its competence when it held that the staff member was entitled to be granted a retroactive promotion with effect from 1 January 2012 to ensure that the time of the selection process from January 2012 to May 2013 be considered as ¡°D-1...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, in which she alleged that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the Appellant¡¯s case did not constitute ¡°exceptional cases,¡± so as to justify a waiver of the time limit, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also did not find any exceptional circumstances requiring it to receive additional documentary evidence, pursuant to Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, nor did it find that its content would have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reversible error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s rejection of the Appellant¡¯s motion for extension of time and its summary dismissal of her...