±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered it both reasonable and practical to provide for two different dates from which the time limit commenced to run. When the management evaluation is received within the deadline of 45 days, an application must be filed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT within 90 calendar days of an applicant¡¯s receipt of the management evaluation response. However, when the management evaluation is received after the deadline of 45 calendar days but before the expiration of 90 days for applying to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, the receipt of the management evaluation will result in setting...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General of judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/104 and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2012/135. Noting that, where the Administration chooses not to provide a written decision, it cannot lightly argue receivability ratione temporis, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment on receivability. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contested policy, requiring Mr Manco to renounce his permanent resident status in a country not of his nationality as a condition for becoming a staff member of the Organisation at the professional level, was not reflected in any administrative issuance and concluded that it...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting the reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment concerning her entitlements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the claim was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has no jurisdiction to waive the deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rules...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s submission that she let the deadline elapse primarily because she was confused by the first sentence of the message she received from the Office of the Deputy High Commissioner. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that this circumstance was previously considered by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s pronouncement was in accordance with the established case law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the appeal.

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s motion ¡°for a finding of the Respondent¡¯s dissembling. ¡± With respect to the substance of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regardless of the nature of the new fact discovered by an applicant, timeliness of the filing of an application for revision is essential. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

With regard to the decisions to transfer the Appellant from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS to GF / WHO, to transfer her back to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS and to put her on reimbursable loan to the GF, to deny her the right to return to ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS, and to separate her from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS upon the expiry of her SLWOP on 30 June 2012, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in holding that the Appellant¡¯s challenges were time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to seek timely management evaluation of her separation from ±¬ÁÏÍøOPS on 30 June 2012. With respect to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that the Appellant was not challenging her financial package and that the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that it has consistently held that Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute must be read literally to prohibit ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from waiving the deadlines for seeking management evaluation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has no jurisdiction or competence to waive such deadlines. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ignorance of the law is no excuse and, while it was unfort±¬ÁÏÍøATe that Mr. Nianda-Lusakueno relied on the informal review procedure, such reliance did not qualify as exceptional circumstances under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1, paragraph 8. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Secretary-General of ICAO.