����AV

UNAT held that the Appellant had failed to submit his appeal to the AJAB in accordance with the time limits defined in ICAO’s Field Service Staff Rules. UNAT held that a submission of an appeal of the administrative decision to AJAB was a mandatory step in the first-instance procedure. UNAT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of an appellant which were not considered first by the AJAB as the “neutral first instance process”. UNAT further held that the Appellant had failed to comply with a mandatory step of the first instance...

UNAT held that the requirements for UNAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. UNAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. UNAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

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

UNAT 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 UNAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the motion. UNAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant’s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously...