±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, at the time of applying for the position, information was available to the Appellant in the form of the Inspira Applicant¡¯s Manual, including the World Higher Education Database list, which meant that he had the information about how to reflect his degree correctly in his electronic application and that an inaccurate application would render him ineligible for the position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant¡¯s challenge of the decision not to consider or select him for the position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

±¬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...

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

±¬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...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no basis for vacating the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in its...

Starting with the presumption that official acts are regularly performed, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the Administration acted in accordance with the Staff Regulations and Rules when it invited three roster candidates for an informal interview and made a final selection from the roster. Given the presumption of regularity was satisfied, the burden of proof shifted on the staff member who must demonstrate that he was not given fair and adequate consideration. This, the staff member failed to do. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the staff member can only challenge a specific administrative decision, and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not detect any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

The evidence of procedural errors and irregularities supported the Dispute Tribunal¡¯s findings of fact that lead to the justifiable conclusion that, had the irregularities not occurred, Mr Russo-Got had a foreseeable and significant chance of selection given his qualifications. The approach adopted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and by which ±¬ÁÏÍøDT assessed Mr.; Russo-Got¡¯s chances of being selected for the post as one in five was reasonable. In the absence of errors of fact or law by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT defers to its discretion in awarding and quantifying the pecuniary damages.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that Ms Mokrova¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae because she filed a request for management evaluation beyond the 60 days of the notification of the contested decision by the Under-Secretary-General for DSS.

±¬ÁÏÍøDT preliminarily rejected the Applicant¡¯s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant¡¯s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...