±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both an appeal by the Secretary-General and also a cross-appeal by Mr Nwuke requesting additional compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in deciding that the appointment of the rostered candidate was unlawful and in breach of Mr Nwuke¡¯s rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no illegality occurred and that the appointment was entirely within the Administration¡¯s discretion, which was not abusive. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and dismissed Mr Nwuke¡¯s cross-appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had to be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the nature of the contested decision before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not entirely clear. On the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that the Settlement Agreement was imposed upon him by duress and threats, and therefore must fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law or fact in the decision and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on this point. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to deal with the Appellant¡¯s claim of harassment and discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process entitlement him to a fair hearing and a fully reasoned judgment of his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against three judgments (judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/028, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/029 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2013/076). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, generally speaking, appeals against a decision to initiate an investigation are not receivable as such a decision is preliminary in nature and does not, at that stage, affect the legal rights of the staff member. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that initiating an investigation is merely a step in the investigative process and it is not an administrative decision that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is competent to review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law and exceeded its...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General in which he appealed the order of the award of damages and averred that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on questions of law and fact and exceeded its competence in awarding damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reasonable expectation of the duration of Mr Andreyev¡¯s contract was one year and reduced the award of compensation in lieu of rescission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of harm to support the award for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, reduced the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s award of compensation in lieu of rescission to nine months¡¯ net base salary, less...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB did not err in limiting the scope of the Appellant¡¯s application to the written reprimand, as the various other allegations raised were not the subject of a request for administrative review, and were therefore not receivable, and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed those grounds of appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision on the part of the JAB and dismissed that ground of appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s submission that the JAB may have been unduly influenced by the presence of the Registrar¡¯s...

On the question of maintaining confidentiality, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not provided persuasive reasons for maintaining the confidentiality of his case and did not grant his petition. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a decision not to review the closure of an investigation, which had been impugned by a staff member as procedurally or substantively irregular, was a decision that affected a staff member¡¯s legal rights and that it, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the specific provisions of ICAO¡¯s personnel instruction should have led to a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both Mr Said, limited to the amount of damages awarded, and by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made several errors of law when it found ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s decision not to renew Mr Said¡¯s contract for poor performance was not supported by his Performance Evaluation Report (PER) and was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not accord any deference to ±¬ÁÏÍøICEF¡¯s conclusion that Mr Said¡¯s performance was poor and, instead, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT placed itself in the role of the decision-maker and determined whether it would have renewed the contract, based on the PER. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant¡¯s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...