Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant¡¯s deputation in order to determine his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB¡¯s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years¡¯ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary decisions such as the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member¡¯s performance appraisal do not have direct legal effects on his/her rights. They can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member¡¯s performance appraisal.Delegation of authority: A delegation of authority should not be guessed at or presumed. It must precede the taking of a decision and is not synonymous with retrospective rubberstamping.Classification of posts/generic job profiles: Section 2.2 of ST...

The fact that OSLA counsel have fulfilled in the past other functions within the Organization does not generally disqualify them from discharging their new duties. Outcome: Application rejected on the merits

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant clearly identified the administrative decision she wished to contest, and the fact that her Counsel stated that the contested decision was dated 14 April 2010 (the day of her being advised of her non-selection) and not 13 July 2010 (the date of the OIOS/USG¡¯s ultimate selection decision) did not make any difference, as the latter decision was merely confirming the former and could be perceived as being impliedly contested in the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Under Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services¡¯ ultimate selection decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the test that the decision appeared to be prima facie unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the Applicant satisfied the urgency test. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT noted that the decision would leave five days, from the date of the Judgment, for the Applicant to obtain temporary employment for a period of three months. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that a stay in the implementation of the decision, albeit for the limited period of an additional 25 calendar days, until the management evaluation is due on 7 November 2011, would serve the purpose of allowing sufficient time for the Respondent to carry out a proper...

Scope of judicial review: It is the selection panel¡¯s role to assess the language skills of candidates. In this respect, it is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own assessment for that of the selection panel, except where the panel made a manifest error of assessment.Notification and legality of administrative decisions: Irregularities affecting the notification of an administrative decision have no effect on the legality of that decision since such legality must be assessed as at the date on which the decision was made and not based on later circumstances, such as the notification...

The Applicant requested the Tribunal to find that he suffered a prejudice equivalent to a 60% permanent loss of ENT functions and a 10% permanent loss of respiratory functions and to compensate him accordingly. He further requested the Tribunal to award him two years¡¯ net base salary as compensation for the prejudice suffered as a result of the Organization¡¯s failure to ensure the security and safety of its staff in Bagdad. The Tribunal found that the latter request was not receivable as it did not stem from a refusal decision by the Secretary-General, a decision which, in any event, should...

The Tribunal finds that the selection process was flawed but that the Applicant has not established a causal link between the irregularity and the harm he claims to have suffered. Assessing the legality of the contested decision: When the Administration decides to use a specific procedure, it is bound to fully comply with this procedure. Thus, if the Administration had determined that applications for a vacant position would be assessed by a panel of five members, all five panel members should have actually participated in the assessment, and the failure to comply with the procedure resulted...

The Tribunal finds that the selection process was not flawed. Judicial review: In reviewing selection decisions, it is not for the Tribunal to substitute its own assessment for that of the selection panel, except where errors of fact or manifest errors in the assessment of the facts have been committed.Outcome: Application rejected on the merits