Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

While it is...

Mme Mkhabela a fait appel.

En ce qui concerne la recevabilit¨¦ ratione temporis, l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que le RC ne pouvait pas ¨ºtre consid¨¦r¨¦ comme ayant l¨¦galement prolong¨¦ les d¨¦lais de d¨¦p?t d'une demande de contr?le hi¨¦rarchique. Outre le fait qu¡¯il n¡¯existe aucune preuve d¡¯une telle promesse, la v¨¦rit¨¦ est que le CR ne disposait pas d¡¯un tel pouvoir, qui est uniquement conf¨¦r¨¦ au Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral, comme le prescrit l¡¯article 11.2(c) du R¨¨glement du personnel. De m¨ºme, l'affirmation de Mme Mkhabela selon laquelle elle n'a pas ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e des raisons ou de la d¨¦cision de s'¨¦carter du plan de...

Ms. Mkhabela appealed.

As regards receivability ratione temporis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the RC could not be seen as having lawfully extended the time limits to file a management evaluation request. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of such a promise, the truth is that the RC did not have such authority, which is only bestowed upon the Secretary-General, as prescribed by Staff Rule 11.2(c). Likewise, Ms. Mkhabela¡¯s claim that she was not apprised of the reasons or decision to deviate from the Transition Plan is without merit, as she is not entitled to be made aware of reasons behind...

Le Tribunal du contentieux administratif ¨¦tait confront¨¦ ¨¤ deux versions inconciliables de l'affaire et il lui fallait donc s'assurer de la cr¨¦dibilit¨¦ et de la fiabilit¨¦ des diff¨¦rents t¨¦moins factuels et des probabilit¨¦s. Cette t?che a ¨¦t¨¦ rendue particuli¨¨rement difficile pour le Tribunal du contentieux administratif dans la mesure o¨´ les t¨¦moins concern¨¦s n'ont pas pr¨¦sent¨¦ leurs d¨¦positions en personne. En l¡¯esp¨¨ce, les ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s par le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral ¨¦taient d¡¯une nature et d¡¯une valeur extr¨ºmement limit¨¦es. Le Secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral s¡¯est appuy¨¦ exclusivement sur le...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was faced with two irreconcilable versions of the case, and thus it was necessary for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to satisfy itself on the credibility and reliability of the various factual witnesses and probabilities. This task was made especially difficult for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT since the relevant witnesses did not present their evidence in person. In this case, the evidence presented by the Secretary-General was of an exceedingly limited nature and value. The Secretary-General relied exclusively on the contents of the written report of the OIOS investigation, which was entirely hearsay and, in some instances...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ICAO Appeals Board implemented internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the Appeals Board no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ICAO Secretary General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process. It further found that while it might have been open to ICAO to consider using the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for resolution of staff member disputes, it was free not to do so and cannot be criticised for doing as it did. It concluded that the Appeals Board¡¯s...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its determination.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in accordance with the Area Staff Rules, which provided for the application of the last published interest rate up to and including the month immediately preceding payment to the calculation of a staff member¡¯s Provident Fund benefits. Given that the staff member made his request on 23 December 2020, the applicable legal instrument in the present case was PFS/19/2020 issued on 12 December 2020, and not PFS/20/2020 issued on 13 January 2021 as...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed Mr. Okwakol¡¯s appeal of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order, finding that Mr. Okwakol¡¯s complaints about what the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decided it would admit into evidence and what submissions it would consider in deciding his substantive case, were remediable as part of his appeal on the merits if they were wrongly decided.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to admit the audio-recording made by the SEA victim because this evidentiary material was relied upon by the Administration in taking the decision to impose the disciplinary measure of separation from service. The audio-recording needed to...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que les questions factuelles et juridiques r¨¦sultant de cet appel ont d¨¦j¨¤ ¨¦t¨¦ clairement d¨¦finies par les parties et qu'il n'est pas n¨¦cessaire de clarifier davantage par le biais d'une audience orale. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait commis aucune erreur lorsqu'elle a constat¨¦ que la demande du membre du personnel ¨¦tait une rationne materiae irr¨¦couvrable. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT avait correctement jug¨¦ que le membre du personnel avait connaissance du pr¨¦sum¨¦ licenciement constructif ¨¤ la date qu'il a r¨¦it¨¦r¨¦ sa d¨¦mission, soit au plus tard lorsque l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF a accept¨¦ sa...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ISA JAB was correct in determining that Ms. Nguyen was: (1) not entitled to a repatriation grant from ISA; (2) not entitled to payment for unused accrued annual leave, which was transferred to her subsequent employer, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA; (3) not entitled to reimbursement for certain school supply expenses; and (4) not entitled to the non-removal allowance, which was a discontinued benefit. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the ISA JAB erred in denying Ms. Nguyen a relocation grant, and erred in denying her the travel expenses and travel time from Kingston, Jamaica to New York. The...

Unat a jug¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de l'administration de suspendre l'examen de l'initiation d'un processus disciplinaire et de reprendre ¨¤ la place si l'appelant est r¨¦approvisi¨¦ par l'organisation ¨¤ l'avenir, ne constituait pas une d¨¦cision administrative appelable aux fins de l'article 2 (1) (a) de la loi Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, car il n'a pas produit d'impact n¨¦gatif actuel et direct sur les conditions de nomination de Mme Mugo. Unat a jug¨¦ que tout ce que l'administration avait fait ¨¦tait de savoir si l'appelant ¨¦tait pr¨ºt ¨¤ coop¨¦rer dans un processus disciplinaire. Par cons¨¦quent, comme aucune all¨¦gation ¨¦crite...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a jug¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en concluant que M. Reiterer avait commis l'inconduite pr¨¦sum¨¦e. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a convenu de la conclusion de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT que les faits ¨¦tablis ¨¦quivalaient ¨¤ une faute de la part de M. Reiterer, ¨¤ savoir qu'il a viol¨¦ ST / SGB / 2008/5 concernant le chef et le ST / AI / 2013/4 concernant le chef deux. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a en outre constat¨¦ que, compte tenu de la nature et des faits sp¨¦cifiques entourant l'inconduite de M. Reiterer, la sanction de la r¨¦trogradation par une cat¨¦gorie avec un report, pendant un an, d'admissibilit¨¦ ¨¤ l'examen de la...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a soutenu qu'il y avait une pr¨¦pond¨¦rance de preuves que le membre du personnel ¨¦tait un passager dans un v¨¦hicule des Nations Unies clairement marqu¨¦ dans lequel des actes de nature sexuelle ont eu lieu lorsqu'il circulait dans une zone fortement trait¨¦e de la ville. Sa conduite constituait une circonstance exceptionnelle en termes de l'article 11.4 (b) de ST / AI / 2017/1, en particulier compte tenu de la nature grave et grave de la conduite dans laquelle il a ¨¦t¨¦ impliqu¨¦, captur¨¦ sur le clip vid¨¦o qui a ¨¦t¨¦ largement diffus¨¦, provoquant Un pr¨¦judice important ¨¤ la r¨¦putation et ¨¤ la...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT ne s'est pas tromp¨¦ en droit ou en fait ou d¨¦pass¨¦ sa juridiction et a rejet¨¦ l'appel du secr¨¦taire g¨¦n¨¦ral. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a constat¨¦ que l'administration avait ¨¦t¨¦ inform¨¦e des conditions de travail disharmonies au sein du bureau r¨¦gional pour l'Europe et n'avait pas pris de mesures en temps opportun. En exposant M. Cahn ¨¤ des conditions de travail nuisibles pendant une p¨¦riode consid¨¦rable (plusieurs mois), l'administration a ¨¦chou¨¦ dans son devoir de diligence vis-¨¤-vis de M. Cahn pour mettre en ?uvre des mesures pr¨¦ventives ou int¨¦rimaires et donc emp¨ºcher tout dommage...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that Mr. Reiterer had committed the alleged misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Reiterer, namely that he violated ST/SGB/2008/5 concerning count one and ST/AI/2013/4 concerning count two. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that given the nature and the specific facts surrounding Mr. Reiterer¡¯s misconduct, the sanction of demotion by one grade with deferment, for one year, of eligibility for consideration for promotion, was not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact or exceed its jurisdiction and it dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had been made aware of the disharmonious working conditions within the Regional Office for Europe and had failed to take timely action. By exposing Mr. Cahn to harmful working conditions for a considerable amount of time (several months), the Administration failed in its duty of care vis-¨¤-vis Mr. Cahn to timely implement preventive or interim measures and thus prevent any possible harm to his health, irrespective of whether...