±¬ÁÏÍø

The ASG/OHR considered all the relevant facts, and weighed the reasons provided by the Director of the RSCE. She considered the circumstances surrounding the Applicant¡¯s prior service on a temporary appointment, and the exception previously granted to the Applicant¡¯s sister.

The Respondent created no legitimate expectation that the exception previously granted to the Applicant¡¯s sister would automatically result in the Applicant being later granted an exception, too; indeed, the derogation in the past had a different factual basis in the type and length of the relationship (and the temporary...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had reviewed the disciplinary decision thoroughly and methodically; the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in fact or law in conducting the proportionality analysis and there had been no irregularity in the investigation and disciplinary process, warranting intervention.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the obligation not to disclose internal information is not limited to confidential information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that even if the staff member had liaison functions with member states, it did not give her the right to communicate internal...

After requesting additional findings of fact from the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found problematic the fact that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT but which it did not accept.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

AAF appealed.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member¡¯s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. As the Secretary-General had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant¡¯s sexual harassment complaint, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made no ruling on this...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto¡¯s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

The Tribunal's findings were as follows:

The impugned decision related to the use of the performance appraisal to penalize the Applicant.

It had jurisdiction to review an impugned decision which meets the requirements under art. 2.1(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute.

The performance appraisal was conducted and completed with a "successfully meets expectations" rating by the Applicant¡¯s FRO and endorsed by her SRO. This was a unilateral decision made in a precise individual case. This decision was final and binding in accordance with sections 15.1 and 15.7 of ST/AI/2010/5 which precluded the Applicant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s decision to suspend the consideration of initiating a disciplinary process and instead resume it should the Appellant become reemployed by the Organization in the future, did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as it did not produce a present and direct adverse impact on Ms. Mugo¡¯s terms or conditions of appointment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all the Administration did was inquire if the Appellant was prepared to cooperate in a disciplinary process. Therefore, as no written allegations were ever...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...