±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s position that the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, however, noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that this error by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not adversely affect...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that AJAB¡¯s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute or the Agreement between the ±¬ÁÏÍø and ICAO. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF¡¯s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms. Larriera¡¯s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera¡¯s appeal was...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no errors in the decision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant¡¯s application was irreceivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the Appellant was notified of the decision not to shortlist him by e-mail of 14 November 2019. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegations regarding the abolishment of his post had no legal relevance for the appeal, which dealt only with issues of receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT first agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the abolition of post was not a reviewable administrative decision. Second, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT ruled there was no evidence of improper motives regarding the non-renewal of the staff member¡¯s appointment. The staff member¡¯s main contention on appeal was that his post should have been subject to a Comparative Review Process (CRP) instead of being identified as a ¡°dry cut.¡± A ¡°dry cut¡± happens when a post is unique and can therefore be abolished without a comparative review. The staff member claims his post should have undergone a CRP because there were other P-5 political...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant¡¯s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision remained not reviewable for...