±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence showed that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 ¡°did not refer to any new fact or information¡± and was ¡°a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s rescission of the decision to maintain the classification, reaffirming the right of staff members to request reclassification when the duties and responsibilities of their posts changed substantially as a result of restructuring within their office. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reversed ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s order to remand the case to the Administration, stating that a second remand was unviable and unfair having regard to the fact that the protracted classification review process was mainly due to the reluctance and failure of management to follow their own rules, regulations and administrative...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the order of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to rescind the contested...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the lateral reassignment of a staff member, in this case, fell entirely within the discretion of the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no evidence of arbitrary and unlawful exercise of discretion in the appeal which could allow ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to pronounce on the discretion of the Administration. Finding no illegality and no evidence that the cancellation of the job opening had an adverse effect on the staff member¡¯s morale and professional reputation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO¡¯s Field Service Staff Rules. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the ¡°neutral first instance process¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant had failed to comply with a mandatory step of the first instance...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that pursuant to Article 30 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant¡¯s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant¡¯s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion to supplement his answer. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted the Appellant¡¯s comments on the Secretary-General¡¯s motion as timely filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Secretary-General¡¯s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had very thoroughly considered the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member¡¯s complaints. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that despite acknowledging that under ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in its entirety.