±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, which notes that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the staff member arguing that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in not awarding compensation in lieu of remand to ABCC as an alternative remedy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment not awarding in-lieu compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that since the Secretary-General concurred with the remand in question, the claim became moot. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a claim of gross negligence against the Administration is a separate action that could not be included in this claim. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not demonstrated that the delay had any impact on her physical or mental well-being, rejecting her...

On appeal by the Secretary-General, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a proper consideration of the whole of the evidence could only have led to one conclusion, and that is that the individual assaulted the victim. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not consider the evidence objectively, specifically by giving misplaced importance to minor inconsistencies, coming to unreasonable conclusions on the facts which were not supported by the evidence, and making speculations instead of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found no fault in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no room for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to substitute its decision...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB¡¯s finding. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no sufficient evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to justify its findings of ¡°moral injury¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred when it awarded compensation on a claim of ¡°moral injury¡± without the support of evidence, apart from the testimony of the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment regarding the award of compensation for moral harm.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the allegation that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the appeal raised significant questions of law about the power of the Organisation to unilaterally alter or reduce the compensation of staff members of the Organisation. For that reason, the President of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in terms of Article 10(2) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute elected to refer the appeal for consideration by the full bench of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that an administrative decision is a unilateral decision of an administrative nature taken by the administration involving the exercise of a power or the performance of a function in terms of a statutory instrument, which adversely affects...