Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant¡¯s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant¡¯s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant¡¯s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s and/or the AJAB¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT intervention...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law, and followed binding Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant¡¯s testimony. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.