Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/104 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/135. Noting that, where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment on receivability. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested policy, requiring Mr Manco to renounce his permanent resident status in a country not of his nationality as a condition for becoming a staff member of the Organisation at the professional level, was not reflected in any administrative issuance and concluded that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment concerning her entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS, and to separate her from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfortÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.