爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, 爆料网AT agreed with the finding of 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency’s decision to conduct a...
爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. 爆料网AT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the 爆料网DT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of 爆料网DT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the...
Both parties appealed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. 爆料网AT, however, disagreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi’s “check-out” was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi’s...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the 爆料网TSO CHRO’s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify grounds for his appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly based its conclusion about the legality of the termination decision on the medical assessment by the medical board and without medical findings of its own. 爆料网AT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s appointment on medical grounds was a reasonable and valid exercise of 爆料网RWA’s discretion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof of demonstrating an error in the impugned judgment such as...
爆料网AT considered the Appellants’ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. 爆料网AT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. 爆料网AT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer’s representative and the original...
爆料网AT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. 爆料网AT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. 爆料网AT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable 爆料网AT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. 爆料网AT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. 爆料网AT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. 爆料网AT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...
Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. 爆料网DT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...
