±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not contest the decision to separate her from the Organisation, thus the SAB was not seized with her separation and her appeal on that issue was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claims for compensation for pain, suffering, and medical expenses were beyond the scope of the case and therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the IMO Secretary-General¡¯s decision to place the Appellant on sick leave was based on sound medical evidence which was not rebutted at the time and that there was no basis to set aside that decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no basis...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s identity was probably known by the assessment panel at the time her test was marked. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s test was graded by the assessment panel after it had sent the transmittal memorandum to the Central Review Panel (CRP), creating the additional burden for the Appellant of having to persuade the assessment panel to change its original recommendation in the transmittal memorandum. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the candidates recommended in the transmittal memorandum did not have this additional burden, it could not be said that all candidates received equal...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a SPA can only be granted if the conditions of ST/AI/1999/17 are met, inter alia, that the staff member has been assigned to and discharged the full functions of a post which has been both classified and budgeted at a higher level, and that these prerequisites were not met. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the denial of the ex gratia payment was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration did not commit any errors in exercising its discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the denial of an ex gratia payment did not violate the principle of equal pay for equal value and did not constitute discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Garbo and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that Mr Garbo¡¯s appointment was not terminated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly rejected the Appellant¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Ahmad and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that Mr Ahmad¡¯s appointment was not terminated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to reject Mr Ahmad¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Gido and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct to hold that Mr Gido¡¯s appointment was not terminated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have rescinded the decision placing him on SLWFP. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly held that the SLWFP decision had been rendered moot because the employment relationship had ceased and the special leave had been consumed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly rejected Mr Gido¡¯s claim for compensation as there was no direct link between the SLWFP decision and the termination indemnity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that all of the Appellant¡¯s grounds of appeal failed, except for his challenge to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA decision not to renew or extend the Appellant¡¯s limited duration contract beyond its final extension, for the simple reason that those several decisions to extend his contract advantaged him by adding, in total, six months to his contract. On the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-renewal or final extension, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s reasoning and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA was justified in deciding not to renew or extend his employment, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA faced a massive financial shortfall...