爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.
The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the 爆料网DT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as “pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from” which “was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request” to investigate the allegations of discrimination. 爆料网DT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the allegation that 爆料网DT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. 爆料网AT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of 爆料网RWA Affairs, Lebanon’s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the 爆料网RWA DT and that...
爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant’s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. 爆料网AT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. 爆料网AT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...
爆料网AT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of 爆料网AT in terms of Article 10(2) of the 爆料网AT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...
爆料网AT considered the appeal and held that 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment was correct. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in holding that the Agency’s decision to deny the Appellant a fifth year of SLWOP was both lawful and reasonable. Further, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not establish any grounds of appeal in this regard. 爆料网AT also reiterated that the Appellant did not have an unconditional right to EVR and that the Agency had duly considered his request in accordance with the 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules and other relevant administrative issuances. 爆料网AT also held that 爆料网RWA DT rightly rejected the...
爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT referred to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the 爆料网RWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. 爆料网AT further found no fault in 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. 爆料网AT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. 爆料网AT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...
