As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion “for a finding of the Respondent’s dissembling. ” With respect to the substance of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from 爆料网OPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to 爆料网OPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to 爆料网OPS, and to separate her from 爆料网OPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not err in holding that the Appellant’s challenges were time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from 爆料网OPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to 爆料网DT’s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...
爆料网AT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute must be read literally to prohibit 爆料网DT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that 爆料网DT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. 爆料网AT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfort爆料网ATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.
The Appellant claimed that her interpretation of the advice given by the 爆料网DT Registry was that an extension of time was not needed. 爆料网AT noted that it has repeatedly and consistently strictly enforced the time limits for filing applications and appeals, which assures the goal of hearing cases and rendering judgments in a timely fashion. 爆料网AT found that it was unreasonable for the Appellant, even as a layperson, to conclude that an extension of time would never be needed and that there was no limitation on the time for filing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any error of law...
爆料网AT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before 爆料网RWA DT to be non-receivable. 爆料网AT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before 爆料网RWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the Appellant’s claim was not receivable. 爆料网AT noted that it was evident that the Appellant knew of the process of management evaluation at the time of the impugned administrative decision. 爆料网AT also held that 爆料网DT correctly exercised its discretion to award costs against the Appellant for abuse of the judicial process, as her failure to apply for management evaluation was deliberate and thus her application was frivolous and vexatious. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal in its entirety and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal regarding the judgment on Receivability (爆料网DT/2011/063) and the judgment on the Merits (爆料网DT/2010/085). As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied Ms Hunt-Matthews' request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT noted that the Secretary-General may properly appeal the judgment on Receivability as part of the judgment on the Merits and that it was timely. 爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网DT should have received Ms Hunt-Matthes’ application and found that it was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred when it determined that Ms Hunt-Matthes’ claims of...
爆料网AT considered two appeals by the staff member of 爆料网DT Order Nos. 109 and 110. 爆料网AT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before 爆料网DT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, 爆料网AT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. 爆料网AT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. 爆料网AT held that there was no statutory...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网RWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before 爆料网RWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. 爆料网AT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
The Secretary-General appealed, regarding the judgments on liability and relief. Mr. Wasserstorm also appealed regarding the judgment of relief. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations to the Administration and found that the recommendations are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT accordingly upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on receivability. 爆料网AT reversed the judgment on Liability and vacated the judgment on Relief. With respect to the award of costs, 爆料网AT found that the Secretary-General’s refusal to...
