±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to exercise its jurisdiction or erred in law by using the summary judgment procedure to determine the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not challenge an administrative decision that was alleged to be in non-compliance with the terms of appointment or the contract of employment of the staff member, rather the Appellant challenged the MEU¡¯s wording in a letter to him acknowledging the receipt of his grievance or complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in law...

On an appeal by the Secretary-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the applications were receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute limits the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s jurisdiction to hearing appeals against administrative decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT defined an administrative decision as 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 the rights of a staff member and produces direct legal consequences. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, with the...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined to receive the Appellant¡¯s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that knowledge of the...

On the question of the non-renewal of appointment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that (1) the Appellant¡¯s application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as he had not submitted a request for management evaluation, and (2) that the Appellant¡¯s request for assistance from the Ombudsman did not constitute a request for management evaluation (and that even it did, it would have been time-barred). On the ¡°decision¡± of the Administration to place adverse material in the Appellant¡¯s official status file and to block him from being rehired, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no final, appealable...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s final legal conclusion that the Applicant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant¡¯s application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was unable to detect any fault in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion that the negative narrative comments and the performance appraisal itself constituted a reviewable administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the negative narrative comments detracted from the overall satisfactory performance appraisal of the Appellant and had present and direct legal consequences for the Appellant¡¯s terms of appointment, thus the comments and the performance appraisal constituted a final administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was...

±¬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 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...