±¬ÁÏÍø

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...

Mr. Jibril appealed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

The Applicant essentially contests the Administration¡¯s execution of Judgment Ozturk 2018- ±¬ÁÏÍøAT-892, i.e., the Administration¡¯s reimbursement of USD41,173 made on 7 May 2019 for excess salary deducted pursuant to a child support court order.

While the Applicant sought to identify the ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK Administration¡¯s email response dated 19 January 2023 as a contested decision, that email merely constitutes a mere reiteration of the Administration¡¯s decision of 7 May 2019, and thus it does not constitute a new administrative decision.

The Applicant first became aware of the contested decision on 7 May...

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

±¬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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the staff member¡¯s due...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly pointed out that the only remedy requested by the staff member in his application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was the rescission of the administrative decision not to transfer him. Only now on appeal does the staff member raise other claims and additionally requests payment of all salaries and benefits from the date of termination to the date of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment, including pension benefits and compensation for the material and moral harm inflicted on him, caused by harassment, mistreatment, and unlawful termination. His new requests on appeal cannot be accepted by the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a preponderance of evidence that the staff member was a passenger in a clearly-marked ±¬ÁÏÍø vehicle in which acts of a sexual nature took place as it circulated in a heavily-trafficked area of the city. His conduct constituted an exceptional circumstance in terms of Section 11.4(b) of ST/AI/2017/1, especially considering the serious and grave nature of the conduct in which he was involved, captured on the video clip which was circulated widely, causing significant harm to the reputation and credibility of the Organization. His placement on ALWOP was a reasonable...