Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT but which it did not accept.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that because of a combination of the staff member¡¯s failure to recall the events in question and of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision (concurred in by the parties) not to hold an in-person hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had appropriately referred to the investigation report.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly determined the staff member¡¯s acts were sexual in nature. The staff member had, without invitation, encouragement or consent, embraced two different women in a sexual manner at a party at a staff retreat. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ ¨¤ la fois l'appel et l'appel ¨¤ travers. En ce qui concerne l'appel crois¨¦ du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral contre la d¨¦cision de la r¨¦ception de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait raison de ne pas rejeter les r¨¦clamations comme irr¨¦alisables, mais d'enqu¨ºter sur leurs m¨¦rites. En ce qui concerne les m¨¦rites, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que les prestations de d¨¦c¨¨s en vertu des r¨¨gles ne sont pas payables aux b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires nomm¨¦s par un membre du personnel, mais aux b¨¦n¨¦ficiaires d¨¦sign¨¦s tels que d¨¦finis par les r¨¨gles du personnel (c'est-¨¤-dire le conjoint survivant ou les enfants ¨¤ charge). L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Unat a jug¨¦ que le consentement de l'appelant ¨¤ avoir pr¨¦c¨¦d¨¦ une audience en personne n'¨¦tait pas requis, conform¨¦ment ¨¤ la r¨¨gle 22 des r¨¨gles du Conseil d'appel de l'OACI et de la r¨¨gle 111.1 du personnel de l'OACI 111.1. L'appelante a ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e par le Board d'appel de l'OACI de son intention de proc¨¦der ¨¤ une d¨¦cision sommaire et elle a particip¨¦ ¨¤ ce processus en faisant des soumissions sans s'y opposer. Par cons¨¦quent, ce n'¨¦tait pas une erreur de droit pour que le conseil d'appel de l'OACI ait examin¨¦ et d¨¦cid¨¦ le jugement sommaire sans audience en personne, mais autrement en...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que le membre du personnel ¨¦tait responsable d'avoir convenu que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ne devait entendre aucune preuve directe des t¨¦moins en personne, mais devrait d¨¦cider de l'affaire sur les documents soumis. En tant que tribunal inquisitoire et non uniquement contradictoire, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT aurait n¨¦anmoins pu avoir tenu une audience. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait le droit de conclure sur les preuves du plaignant ¨¤ elle seule que le membre du personnel s'¨¦tait engag¨¦ dans une relation sexuelle avec elle. Leur relation sexuelle ¨¦tait li¨¦e ¨¤ l'emploi et donc transactionnelle. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait le...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel du Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral et a accord¨¦ en partie l'appel de M. Rolli. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que la r¨¦siliation de la d¨¦cision de r¨¦siliation ordonn¨¦e par le Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¦tait ?inutile? depuis que l¡¯affaire ¨¦tait parvenue ¨¤ l¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, le poste de M. Rolli avait ¨¦t¨¦ aboli. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a donc jug¨¦ que dans ces circonstances, l'indemnisation devait reposer en vertu de l'article 10, paragraphe 5, (b) et ¨ºtre pour pr¨¦judice caus¨¦ par la d¨¦cision ill¨¦gale. Les m¨¦faits qu'il a subis comprenaient la perte de sa r¨¦mun¨¦ration et de ses avantages (¨¦ducation et droits de pension), les pertes sp¨¦cifiques...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a confirm¨¦ la d¨¦cision de l'ITLOS JAB, jugeant que l'ITLOS n'¨¦tait pas oblig¨¦ de conclure l'exercice de recrutement une fois qu'il avait commenc¨¦ et qu'il avait le pouvoir d'annuler le processus. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ¨¦tait pr¨¦occup¨¦ par la modification de la proc¨¦dure de recrutement au cours du recrutement contest¨¦, mais n'a pas pu discerner comment cela a affect¨¦ la candidature de M. Savadogo. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a convenu avec l'ITLOS JAB que les all¨¦gations de pr¨¦jug¨¦s de M. Savadogo contre le registraire dans le recrutement ont ¨¦t¨¦ contr¨¦es par le fait que le pr¨¦sident de l'ITLO critiques. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude on the complainant¡¯s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli¡¯s cross-appeal in part. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was ¡°pointless¡± since by the time the case had reached the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Mr. Rolli¡¯s post had been abolished. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision. The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the decision of the ITLOS JAB, holding that the ITLOS was not obliged to conclude the recruitment exercise once it had begun, and that it had the authority to cancel the process. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was concerned by the change to the recruitment procedure during the course of the contested recruitment, but could not discern how this affected Mr. Savadogo¡¯s candidacy. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the ITLOS JAB that Mr. Savadogo¡¯s allegations of bias against the Registrar in the recruitment were countered by the fact that the President of ITLOS made the significant decisions in the recruitment...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...

Unat a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT a conclu correctement que la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e de ne pas initier une enqu¨ºte due ¨¤ la d¨¦mission de son SRO ¨¦tait l¨¦gale dans le cadre d'un exercice raisonnable du pouvoir discr¨¦tionnaire. Bien que le terme ?¨¦valuation pr¨¦liminaire? dans ST / SGB / 2019/8 n'ait pas ¨¦t¨¦ sp¨¦cifiquement utilis¨¦ dans la d¨¦cision contest¨¦e, il ¨¦tait clair que la plainte de Mme Fosse ¨¦tait pr¨¦liminairement ¨¦valu¨¦e avant que la d¨¦cision ne soit prise qu'aucune enqu¨ºte ne serait entreprise. Alors que le Bulletin pr¨¦c¨¦dent (ST / SGB / 2008/5) peut avoir ¨¦t¨¦ en vigueur lorsqu'elle a d¨¦pos¨¦ sa...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the contested decision not to initiate an investigation due to the resignation of her SRO was lawful as part of a reasonable exercise of discretion. Though the term ¡°preliminary assessment¡± in ST/SGB/2019/8 was not specifically used in the contested decision, it was clear that Ms. Fosse¡¯s complaint was preliminarily assessed before the decision was made that no investigation would be undertaken. While the previous Bulletin (ST/SGB/2008/5) may have been in force when she lodged her complaint and when it was the subject of a preliminary...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel interlocutoire comme non ¨¤ recevoir au motif que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas clairement d¨¦pass¨¦ sa comp¨¦tence ou sa juridiction ou a assum¨¦ une juridiction qu'elle n'avait pas lorsqu'elle a consolid¨¦ les affaires de M. Toson. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement convenu avec le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral que M. Toson avait avanc¨¦ des arguments infructueux similaires dans une affaire Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT ant¨¦rieure qu'il a apport¨¦e, mais M. Toson a refus¨¦ d'¨ºtre guid¨¦ par ce jugement avant de poursuivre le pr¨¦sent appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a mis M. Toson en avis qu'il risque qu'il en r¨¦sulte une attribution de co?ts pour des litiges...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

En ce qui concerne l'appel contre l'ordonnance de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT pour la radiation des documents contest¨¦s de son dossier, Unat a constat¨¦ qu'il ¨¦tait ¨¤ recevoir parce que, ¨¤ moins que les documents ne soient conserv¨¦s pour ¨ºtre utilis¨¦s au proc¨¨s, ils pourraient ¨ºtre perdus avec la cons¨¦quence que le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral serait Soyez incapable de les utiliser pour ¨¦tablir ses all¨¦gations de contrefa?on et de fraude comme il avait droit. Unat a constat¨¦ que l'ordre de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¦tait, ¨¤ cet ¨¦gard, effectivement irr¨¦m¨¦diable; que ce serait une cons¨¦quence manifestement d¨¦raisonnable de l'ordre pour le...

As to the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order for expungement of the impugned documents from its case file, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it was receivable because, unless the documents were preserved for use at trial, they might be lost with the consequence that the Secretary-General would be unable to use them to establish his allegations of forgery and fraud as he was entitled to. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s Order was, in this respect, effectively irremediable; that this would be a manifestly unreasonable consequence of the Order for the Secretary-General; and that the circumstances were so rare and...

Unat a jug¨¦ que le jugement de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵD n'¨¦tait pas coh¨¦rent dans la constatation de parties de la demande irr¨¦couvrables mais ne s'adressant pas ¨¤ ce qui allait arriver au solde de la r¨¦clamation qui ¨¦tait ¨¤ recevoir. Unat a soutenu que dans la mesure o¨´ l'ANDT a jug¨¦ que certaines des r¨¦clamations de l'appelant n'¨¦taient pas ¨¤ recevoir car ils n'¨¦taient pas d¨¦pos¨¦s dans les temps apr¨¨s l'¨¦valuation de la direction, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en fait ou de la loi et a maintenu de telles conclusions. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'il y avait des erreurs de Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT ¨¤ l'¨¦gard de laquelle l'appel devait ¨ºtre autoris¨¦...