±¬ÁÏÍø

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member¡¯s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member failed to provide evidence to prove entitlement to compensation for harm suffered. In particular, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no evidence was submitted proving a nexus between the illegality committed and any harm suffered by the former staff member as a result. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT highlighted that the medical report submitted by the former staff member recorded that she had complained of lack of sleep and headaches ¡°for several years¡± and that such symptoms were consistent with a previous diagnosed medical condition.

As to the costs of the appeal, since there was no...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that an objective reading of the staff member¡¯s request for decision review showed clearly that she had only contested the second and not the first reprimand, both issued for not performing assigned teaching tasks. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered references to the official having issued it, its date and the remedy sought indicated in the request. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT therefore held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred in fact or in law when it considered that the staff member had not submitted a request for decision review in respect of the first reprimand and found the application in the respective part...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, nor any finding by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment where the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

After consulting the Staff Regulations and Rules and the Respondent¡¯s submissions, the Tribunal has found nothing to contradict the Applicant that the breathalyzer test was conducted illegally.

The Tribunal will not accept evidence obtained in violation of the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has failed to discharge his burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant drove his vehicle after consuming alcohol.

The evidence is clear that the Respondent¡¯s argument that a Military Officer was authorized to conduct a breathalyzer...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered three appeals by the applicant.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that because the termination had been rescinded and Mr. Mukhopadhyay had been reinstated further to the First Judgment, the appeal of the Second Judgment had become moot as there could be no entitlement to termination notice pursuant to the applicable Regulations and Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus granted the Secretary-General's appeal and reversed the Second Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found not receivable Mr. Mukhopadhyay¡¯s cross-appeal requesting an award for consequential damages, compensation for moral damages and costs. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that he had made these claims for the first time on appeal and was...