±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined the Appellants¡¯ request for an oral hearing based on the length and complexity of the background of the appeal and that it was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to hold one. On the Appellants¡¯ argument that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had erred previously in establishing the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that they were effectively requesting a revision of two previous ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgments and held that they were time-barred from doing so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, as previously...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was appealed by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not exceed the scope of judicial review by reviewing the facts and concluding that there was sufficient evidence of inebriation but concluding there was a lower level of alcohol consumed based on the breathalyzer result. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the imposition of the sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and termination indemnity was disproportionate to the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err and that clear and convincing evidence established that the Appellant participated in an attempted taking of property belonging to the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal from service was proportionate and lawful. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the items were ¡°garbage¡±, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that this claim was entirely without merit as the evidence showed that the items included over USD 5,000 worth of material, including boxes of new floor tiles. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to fully assess...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellants¡¯ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer¡¯s representative and the original...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error of law in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA adhered to the principles of equality...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to exercise its jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute in regard to the decision of IMO SAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in this case, even if the SAB issued decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer¡¯s representative and the original decision-maker. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had committed various errors of law, fact, and procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the whole reasoning of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was misconstrued and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not properly examine the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant awarded and signed a contract on behalf of ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA, that she did not conduct any market research or consider other suppliers before doing so, that she had no authority to sign the contract and that she was involved in procurement activities in relation to another ±¬ÁÏÍøFPA vendor. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...