±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the former staff member¡¯s change of title following a reclassification did not amount to an abolition or discontinuance of her post, rendering her termination of appointment unlawful.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also determined that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in awarding the former staff member compensation in lieu of two years¡¯ net base salary. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT emphasized that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly considered the fact that the former staff member¡¯s permanent appointment included a specific undertaking stating that she could only be terminated due to an...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it found that a termination decision was made on 1 April 2022. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that while a decision to place a note in the former staff member¡¯s Official Status File (OSF) was made on 1 April 2022, the termination decision was actually taken on 11 March 2022. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have identified either decision as the contested decision, but erred in following the former staff member¡¯s assertion that a termination decision was taken on 1 April 2022.

Nevertheless...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the new evidence submitted for the first time on appeal, which sought to justify the late filing of the case by attributing it to the appellant¡¯s attorney¡¯s personal circumstances.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the opinion that staff members must generally adhere to the specified time limits. However, in this case, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in fact and law in dismissing Mr. Khan¡¯s application as not receivable ratione temporis. It concluded that Mr. Khan¡¯s exceptional circumstances¡ªincluding severe flooding disrupting internet service and affecting his ability to access e...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the staff member¡¯s action of gifting a sex toy to a subordinate was inappropriate, as it transgressed the boundary between the professional and personal life of the subordinate, even if the event took place in private. Whether solicited or not, it had the potential to negatively impact the image and interests of the Organization. Consequently, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that by doing so, the staff member failed to uphold the required standard expected of her role as a manager.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed no error in finding that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the decision not to select the staff member for TJO 161651 was lawful. It held that since the staff member did not challenge the cancellation of TJO 14924, under which the Administration initially advertised the position of Administrative Officer, that cancellation decision was not part of the contested decision under review. In any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT determined that the Administration had the discretion to cancel TJO 149241 and re-advertise the position under TJO 161651 after the selected candidate withdrew her candidature. It was under no obligation to invite the second...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the President of the Council of ICAO, in taking the decision not to approve the appointment of the staff member to the post, had regard to relevant considerations: the staff member was negatively assessed by the interview panel and the assessment centre, and had serious weaknesses in areas of vision and other competencies which were critical skills for ICAO. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the reasons provided by the President accorded with the facts.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that, although the President discussed the matter with some members of the panel, these discussions had not...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Almasri did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. Mr. Almasri¡¯s primary complaint was that the remedy awarded to him failed to make him eligible for a better retirement pension based on a longer deemed service and contribution history.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no new fact was advanced by Mr. Almasri that had been unknown either to him or the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. Instead, it was Mr. Almasri¡¯s negligence that brought about his factual ignorance...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Standing Committee of ±¬ÁÏÍøJSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow¡¯s benefit.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Registry. Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, at the time of the late participant¡¯s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the applicant¡¯s reliance on Article 2 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Article 24 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...