爆料网AT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, 爆料网AT clarified, did not mean that 爆料网DT had dismissed the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with 爆料网DT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the 爆料网AT judgment.
爆料网AT rejected the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s ground of appeal was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant’s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the IMO Secretary-General’s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. 爆料网AT held there was no basis...
爆料网AT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, 爆料网AT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that 爆料网RWA...
爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...
爆料网AT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...
爆料网AT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and WMO dated 20 January 2020. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT held that AJAB’s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute or the Agreement between the 爆料网 and ICAO. 爆料网AT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. 爆料网AT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. 爆料网AT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.
爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.
