Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether exceptional circumstances should apply to the Appellant¡¯s appeal, under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in its conclusion that absent a full explanation for the five-month delay after her discharge from the hospital, the Appellant could not avail herself of the plea of exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make such findings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erroneously awarded the Appellant moral damages because she did not produce any corroborating evidence to support the contention that harm had occurred. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the award for moral damages would stand since the Secretary-General had not appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there is no corroborating evidence to support the Appellant¡¯s claim for damages to ¡°restore her professional, physical and emotional suffering¡± and for ¡°irregularities and ignorance. ¡± The appeal could not succeed on those claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that a referral for accountability is...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the Hiring Manuals binding on the Administration, nonetheless, confirming that the Hiring Manager¡¯s reliance on the shortlist prepared by the CSS/OSU constituted a procedural irregularity in terms of Section 7. 4 of ST/AI/2010/3, which undisputedly enjoys binding legal authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such irregularities only result in the rescission of a non-selection decision or of the decision not to shortlist a candidate in case the candidate had a significant chance, which could not be verified in this case, the same logic being applicable to compensation for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant¡¯s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate¡¯s qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence was presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member because he worked with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS for over three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings that the former supervisor may have retaliated against the staff member for her work-related conduct and for seeking recourse in the internal justice system and that he used his position of authority to improperly influence her work conditions are supported by the available evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former supervisor had evicted the staff member from her functions preventing her from carrying out her duties and intended to humiliate and embarrass her by unjustifiably copying uninterested persons in personal and confidential communications concerning her performance. The...

The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as ¡°pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from¡± which ¡°was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request¡± to investigate the allegations of discrimination. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Administration properly exercised its discretion to place the Applicant on administrative leave, considering an enduring reputational risk in light of the allegations relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an under-age girl, which were reasonably supported by the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the new Staff Rule 10. 4(c), which had not yet been enacted at the relevant time, was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s factual findings were open to criticism in that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant¡¯s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s motion regarding the Appellant¡¯s claims impugning the AJAB¡¯s functioning as the ¡®Neutral First Instance Process¡¯ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant¡¯s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...