±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Ms Fuentes. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found her appeal regarding an investigation by OIOS to be time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly held that it was the special procedure under Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1998/9 and not former Staff Rule 111(2)(a) that applied to appeals of classification decisions and that the Administration had failed to respond to Ms Fuentes¡¯ appeal against the reclassification decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed both appeals and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even though ±¬ÁÏÍøDT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-034. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in converting on its own motion an application for suspension into an application on the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had taken an ultra petita decision, ordering measures not requested of it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in taking the contested decision while a management evaluation was under way, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had breached the provisions of Article 8 of its Statute, which makes prior management evaluation compulsory whenever one is requested. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, in ordering the placement of the application for suspension on the list of cases to be considered on the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal on the basis that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT manifestly exceeded its jurisdictional powers by converting an application for suspension of action into an application on merits and inviting the parties to make submissions on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT took an ultra petita decision by ordering measures for which no claim had been made.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Johnson. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s analysis and held that the decision to deny the staff member a refund of the US income tax on her salary and emoluments was unlawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that the US grants foreign tax credits in respect of income tax paid by one of its nationals or permanent residents to another State to relieve the effects of double taxation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the exclusion of such credits as payment would not only contravene the principle of equality of treatment among staff members if staff members from the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not shown that the Secretary-General of IMO was required, under the IMO staff regulations and the staff rules, to make available to a federation of international staff associations from different organisations an IMO staff member, who was elected to a high office, for all or part of the term. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reference in the appeal to Staff Rule 108. 1, concerning election, composition, and competencies of the staff committee, did not apply in the case. As to the question of inter-agency cost-sharing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it could only establish that this had to...

±¬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...