Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/145. On the issue of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in not receiving the Appellant¡¯s application for revision of judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that to import into Article 12(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute the limitations presently advocated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, merely because of the inclusion of the word ¡°executable,¡± would be unduly restrictive and tantamount to a denial of an already narrowly construed remedy and unduly circumscribe the right of access of staff members to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. With respect to the merits of the application for revision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily dismissed the Appellant¡¯s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not succeed in establishing any error of fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the termination of the Appellant¡¯s appointment was firmly supported by the evidence relative to the necessities of service in the context of a downsizing exercise, and no bias or improper purpose vitiated the impugned decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Appellant did not effectively rebut the conclusions of the impugned judgment, he did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that it was defective such as to...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal as to whether Ms Carrabregu was eligible to be considered for a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the factual sequence clearly showed that Ms Carrabregu freely and willingly resigned from her service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP to take up an appointment with a different entity (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵV), thereby causing a break in service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this break in service should have led Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to uphold the administrative decision that Ms Carrabregu was not eligible for conversion to a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ms Carrabregu¡¯s service to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵV could not be...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by concluding that ST/AI/2002/3 applied to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF, as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook establishes the procedure that a staff member must follow should they wish to rebut the content of their performance report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the principle articulated in Villamoran v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), which holds that administrative issuances have greater legal authority over manuals such as the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF Handbook, only where there is a conflict between guidelines and manuals and a properly promulgated...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant¡¯s applications to suspend action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office¡¯s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

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.