±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party¡¯s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected Mr ElShanti¡¯s arguments against consolidation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti¡¯s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-957), that the decision on the Appellant¡¯s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s and/or the AJAB¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reason upon which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion in consolidating the cases lawfully and appropriately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the impugned decision was taken in good faith and on a reasonable basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational not to renew certain fixed-term appointments on a full-time basis but to reclassify them to part-time appointments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants¡¯ claim that their acquired rights were violated was without merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT disagreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting ±¬ÁÏÍøAT intervention...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in its determinations or award of moral damages, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in deciding not to order any material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had failed to provide sufficiently clear, precise, and intelligible reasoning and had not acted lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to consolidate the cases lawfully and appropriately. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a bona fide reason to restructure and that it was operationally rational to abolish the posts and reclassify them from full-time to part-time posts at that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants¡¯ contention that their acquired rights were violated had no merit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-936 by Mr Diallo. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to him. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Commissioner-General acted unreasonably. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.