±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was no dispute that the Appellant was designated by the Director of OCHA Geneva as Officer-in-Charge (OiC) of the Financial and Administrative Unit, following the reassignment of the holder of the post (a P-5 post) to other functions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had properly determined that the transfer of the P-5 holder ¡°with his post¡¯¡¯ had the effect that there remained no ¡°vacant¡¯¡¯ or ¡°temporarily vacant¡¯¡¯ post against which the Appellant, albeit performing the functions of the post holder, could point to for the purposes of making the case for payment of a SPA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to that extent, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not find that the Applicant was distressed by ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR¡¯s illegal conduct or that he had suffered any adverse consequences or harm from ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR¡¯s procedural error in following the opinion of DSS. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its competence and made an error in law in awarding compensation to the staff member since he had not suffered pecuniary loss or distress and was not harmed by the illegal conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and reversed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the award of damages to the staff member.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant simply stated that he suffered harm following the decision not to reclassify his post but did not provide any evidence of harm to his career or morale. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that compensation may only be awarded if it has been established that the staff member actually suffered damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s interpretation process, which led to the dismissal of the claim, was neither unreasonable nor unfair. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the affirmation that only the purchasing power element of comparison would allow an equal pay and treatment of staff members constituted only a postulation of a certain parameter among many possible options, without real support except in terms of policy selection because other criteria could also allow that kind of equal treatment, provided that they are applied in a general and non-discriminating way. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the comparator element adopted in the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that heads of departments/offices retain the authority to transfer staff members within their departments or offices to vacant posts at the same level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that his reassignment was not contingent on the signature of the Host Country Agreement or that the failure to create an L-5 position breached the Host Country Agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely voiced his agreement with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s conclusions and resubmitted the arguments made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT; he did not meet the burden of demonstrating how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute had been met. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law in its determination that the applicable Information Circular did not entitle the Appellant to an EOSA, nor was it contrary to a higher legal norm. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the facts of the case showed that her resignation did not fulfil the conditions required by the quoted circular. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT specifically noted how the resignation was taken knowing the risks involved and caused the break in service, which determined the ineligibility for collecting the allowance claimed for, acknowledging that the Appellant was requesting an exception from the regulations to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General asserted that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded to Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov for the irregularity in the proceedings. Relying on Kasyanov (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-076) and Wu (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-042), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it previously awarded compensation in the amount of two months¡¯ net base salary where the decision not to appoint the applicants was procedurally flawed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no reason to depart from this jurisprudence as no pecuniary loss was shown on part of Mr Kozlov and Mr Romadanov. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted...