±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the President of the Council of ICAO, in taking the decision not to approve the appointment of the staff member to the post, had regard to relevant considerations: the staff member was negatively assessed by the interview panel and the assessment centre, and had serious weaknesses in areas of vision and other competencies which were critical skills for ICAO. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reasons provided by the President accorded with the facts.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that, although the President discussed the matter with some members of the panel, these discussions had not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had been among the staff whose fixed-term appointments were not renewed due to the closure of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID mission.

With regard to his colleague who was laterally reassigned to the Headquarters and consequently remained in service, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reassignment had been directly related to the undisputed fact that the colleague could not have been repatriated to Afghanistan for safety and security reasons. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that without the lawfulness of the reassignment decision having been placed before it for determination, it was unable to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency¡¯s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that gender parity had not...

ST/AI/2020/5 only applies to selection decision where the selection decision is made from either (a) ¡°a list of candidates¡± that was ¡°endorsed by a central review body¡± or (b) a competitive examination roster. None of these situations apply in this case. It is unchallenged that the contested selection decision was governed by ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1 (Staff selection system), which in sec. 3.1 provides that ¡°[t]he process leading to selection and appointment to the D-2 level shall be governed by the provisions of the present administrative instruction¡±. As per sec. 7.7 of ST/AI/2010/3/Rev.1, for a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s reliance on the communication between the staff member and her attorney when it established that she had submitted false information in her claims for reimbursement for medical expenses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that her attorney had voluntarily submitted the privileged document as an attachment to her application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that she had not imposed any limitations or reservations on the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s use of the document and had referred to it on multiple occasions in the course of the proceedings. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that she had waived her right to confidentiality...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in requiring the staff member to work from the office two days per week. It further held that relevant considerations, including the staff member¡¯s personal and medical circumstances, were taken into consideration, and irrelevant considerations were excluded. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that there was no obligation on the Administration to establish that the requested accommodations represented a disproportionate or undue burden on the workplace.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no merit in the staff member¡¯s argument that the lack of...

The application is DISMISSED in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the sanction imposed was proportionate under all the relevant circumstances. Given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct, and the Applicant¡¯s failure to correct his misconduct despite repeated input from others, it was clear that a non-disciplinary ¡°administrative action¡± would not have achieved the required result. Following its detailed examination of the evidence on file and, particularly, the testimonies heard at the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal found that the sanction of demotion and deferred promotion eligibility was suitable to the facts and...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ICAO Appeals Board implemented internal changes in its law to satisfy the requirements of Article 2(10) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute. It found that the Appeals Board no longer provided only advice or mere recommendations to the ICAO Secretary General, but rather final decisions and, therefore, was a neutral first instance process. It further found that while it might have been open to ICAO to consider using the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for resolution of staff member disputes, it was free not to do so and cannot be criticised for doing as it did. It concluded that the Appeals Board¡¯s...