±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant¡¯s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was impossible for the Appellant¡¯s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the requirements for ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that failing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the paragraphs of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT (by audio conference) as verified by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist ±¬ÁÏÍøAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...