±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier¡¯s contention that the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere ¡°a moral victory¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that success before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT depends on whether the staff member¡¯s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, as the unsuccessful party before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant¡¯s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer¡¯s representative and the original...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...