±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member sought to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the impugned Orders denying the staff member¡¯s requests for anonymity had been issued less than a month after the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had granted his motion for anonymity in another case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the impugned Orders did not exist in isolation and the interaction of all these proceedings rendered the situation exceptional. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that denying him anonymity for his two applications alone would defeat the purpose of anonymity and, in the unique circumstances of these proceedings, this inconsistency was prejudicial to the integrity of the internal justice system. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

The Appeals Tribunal held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

Turning to Mr. Alvear¡¯s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted the staff member had not requested a review of the decision by the United Nations Staff Pension Committee or filed an appeal to the Standing Committee, but rather had filed a request for management evaluation and then had applied to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, as such, he had not followed proper procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no authority for receiving an application by the Dispute Tribunal with regards to a pension decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred when it held that it did not have jurisdiction to undertake a judicial review of the contested...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusion on the receivability of the application but suggested that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have applied a different methodology for determining it.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member did not have standing before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT regarding claims made in his former capacity as an individual contractor, and thus this claim failed on ratione personae grounds. The other claims made in his former capacity as staff member failed on ratione materiae grounds. He failed to prove that a specific request had been made to the Administration for certification of service. Absent any...