±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to overturn a policy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the staff member¡¯s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject the Appellant¡¯s application and held that the appeal had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ,for various reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of ±¬ÁÏÍø-Habitat. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant¡¯s terms of conditions of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors of fact or law by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal on the grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reaching the merits of the present case in circumstances where it had confirmed by Order that it would only address receivability as a preliminary issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT on the matter of receivability and that there was no administrative decision capable of being appealed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administrative decision Mr Saffir impugned did not deprive him of his work or affect his function; it was limited to announcing recruitment round to fill three of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General was duty-bound to implement decisions by the ICSC as directed by the General Assembly and that for the most part, such decisions are of general application and therefore not reviewable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that where a decision of general application negatively affects the terms of appointment of a staff member, such decision shall be treated as an ¡°administrative decision¡± within the scope of Article 2. 1 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. Based on the staff member¡¯s Personnel Action Forms, before and after implementation of the ICSC¡¯s renumbering exercise, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...