Absent any evidence of any improper motive or irrational consideration, and given the bonafide and operational necessity to restructure, there was no basis to conclude that the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that 爆料网RWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. 爆料网AT held that once a staff member was eligible for EVR in accordance with paragraph 8 of Area Staff Rule 109. 2, paragraph 9 became applicable and its text was clear. 爆料网AT held that Mr. El Madhoun was eligible for EVR and it was not established that budgetary constraints were either ground for rejecting his request for EVR or for not withdrawing his notice...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law, and followed binding 爆料网AT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant’s testimony. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before 爆料网DT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. 爆料网AT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.
爆料网AT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-936 by Mr Diallo. 爆料网AT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and to him. 爆料网AT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that 爆料网AT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. 爆料网AT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. 爆料网AT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with 爆料网AT’s direction in...
爆料网AT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that AJAB’s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute or the Agreement between the 爆料网 and ICAO. 爆料网AT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. 爆料网AT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...
爆料网AT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and WMO dated 20 January 2020. 爆料网AT...
爆料网AT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...
