±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the Administration properly exercised its discretion to place the Applicant on administrative leave, considering an enduring reputational risk in light of the allegations relating to sexual abuse and exploitation of an under-age girl, which were reasonably supported by the evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new Staff Rule 10. 4(c), which had not yet been enacted at the relevant time, was not applicable to the Applicant¡¯s misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s factual findings were open to criticism in that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a ±¬ÁÏÍø staff member because he worked with ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS for over three years. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not present sufficient evidence to support his claim and demonstrate any incapacity during the relevant time frame. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the AJAB had considered all relevant evidence to the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings that the former supervisor may have retaliated against the staff member for her work-related conduct and for seeking recourse in the internal justice system and that he used his position of authority to improperly influence her work conditions are supported by the available evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former supervisor had evicted the staff member from her functions preventing her from carrying out her duties and intended to humiliate and embarrass her by unjustifiably copying uninterested persons in personal and confidential communications concerning her performance. The...

The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as ¡°pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from¡± which ¡°was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request¡± to investigate the allegations of discrimination. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it found that i) there was no error of procedure stemming from the delay in completing the comments on the Appellant¡¯s rebuttal statement; and ii) the Appellant¡¯s claim regarding the assessment and findings of the rebuttal panel together with her final performance appraisal did not result in a challengeable administrative decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that, because no explanation was provided for the initial and relevant delay, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the reasons given by the administration...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s appointment and to separate her from service on the basis that she failed to sign the letters of appointment containing the extensions of her fixed-term appointment was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when a performance shortcoming is identified, remedial actions may be put in place and if the shortcoming is not rectified, a PIP shall be prepared. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, in the absence of any explicit provision establishing otherwise, the rebuttal process does not have the effect of suspending the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General¡¯s motion regarding the Appellant¡¯s claims impugning the AJAB¡¯s functioning as the ¡®Neutral First Instance Process¡¯ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant¡¯s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also referred to Article 9(2) of...