爆料网AT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-750 (Kagizi et al.). 爆料网AT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments.
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that neither the 爆料网AT Statute nor the 爆料网AT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. 爆料网AT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...
爆料网AT considered the receivability of the issue of non-renewal and whether 爆料网DT erred in rejecting the Appellant’s claim that his candidacy for the relevant post had not been given full and fair consideration. 爆料网AT referenced Staff Rule 11. 2(a), which provides that it is an established principle that a request for management evaluation is the first step in the appeal process of an administrative decision. 爆料网AT further noted that 爆料网DT has the inherent power to individualize and define the administrative decision challenged by a party and to identify the subject(s) of review. 爆料网AT found no fault...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that he should be considered a 爆料网 staff member because he worked with 爆料网OPS for over three years. 爆料网AT concluded that 爆料网DT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before 爆料网DT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that 爆料网DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. 爆料网AT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of 爆料网RWA Affairs, Lebanon’s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the 爆料网RWA DT and that...
On an appeal by the Secretary-General, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the applications were receivable. 爆料网AT noted that Article 2(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute limits the 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction to hearing appeals against administrative decisions. 爆料网AT defined an administrative decision as a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects the rights of a staff member and produces direct legal consequences. 爆料网AT noted that, with the...
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether 爆料网RWA DT’s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, 爆料网AT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. 爆料网AT held that there was no room for 爆料网RWA DT to substitute its decision...
爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, 爆料网AT...
