±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr Rajan¡¯s motion for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis as it had become moot as the ordinary case management constraints meant it could not have been heard any earlier. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error of law in holding that the Secretary-General was obliged to prove that Mr Rajan had the intention to mislead the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no doubt that Mr Rajan misrepresented the true situation more than once. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was Mr Rajan¡¯s responsibility to ascertain that he was providing accurate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

±¬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 considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s motion regarding the Appellant¡¯s claims impugning the AJAB¡¯s functioning as the ¡®Neutral First Instance Process¡¯ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant¡¯s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...

±¬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 held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA in tranche 2 list. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT contradicted ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply put forward several general complaints related to the alleged merits of her case but did not argue that the judgment was defective or that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed an error in deciding that her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to fully assess...