Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly found that the determination made by the Programme OiC, namely that the application for sabbatical leave should not be forwarded to the Committee, was not within the Programme OiC¡¯s power. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that the decision made by the Programme OiC was in breach of the Appellant¡¯s terms of employment ¡°specifically, his right to have his application forwarded to the Committee and the [Assistant Secretary-General], OHRM¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly observed that an ¡°incomplete application may therefore be one which is missing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to that extent, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute had been met. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal and found that the Appellant exceeded the mandatory time limit for requesting management evaluation of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for suspension of action during the pendency of management evaluation was rightly declared not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not exceed or wrongly exercise its jurisdiction in rejecting the suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076) and Wu (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-042), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.