2012-��AT-231

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

��AT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., ��DT. ��AT held that to that extent, the ��AT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by an executive authority. ��AT, having carefully examined the background documents upon which AJAB based its appraisal of the case, was not convinced by the motives given in the disputed decision not to follow its conclusions and recommendations and by the line of argument in defence. ��AT held that the Appellant had grounds for relying on the support of AJAB��s conclusions and was therefore entitled to request that those conclusions be confirmed. ��AT upheld the appeal and vacated the ICAO Secretary-General��s decision. As an alternative to rescission, ��AT ordered payment of compensation in-lieu.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Mr Ortiz contested the decision to terminate his appointment. The ICAO Secretary-General upheld the termination of his appointment, not following the AJAB��s Opinion No. 125, which had unanimously concluded that the Administration had failed to apply various norms and had breached Mr Ortiz��s rights by deciding to terminate his employment.

Legal Principle(s)

When ��AT examines an appeal against the final decision taken by the ICAO Secretary-General, it takes into account the conclusions and recommendations of the ICAO Advisory Joint Appeals Board (AJAB) and the reasons for which the ICAO Secretary-General departed from/accepted them.

Outcome

Appeal granted

Outcome Extra Text

Both financial and specific performance

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

Ortiz

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement