UNAT held that the Appellant’s consent to foregoing an in-person hearing was not required, pursuant to Rule 22 of the ICAO Appeals Board Rules and ICAO Staff Rule 111.1(18). The Appellant was advised by the ICAO Appeals Board of its intention to proceed with a summary decision and she participated in this process by making submissions without objecting to it. Therefore, it was not an error of law for the Appeals Board of ICAO to have considered and decided the summary judgment without an in-person hearing but otherwise in compliance with due process requirements of participation therein by...
Rule 111.1(6)
Showing 1 - 2 of 2
Right to a hearing
Right to appeal
Time limit
Selection decision
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNAT)
Procedure (first instance and UNAT)
Due process
Management Evaluation
Staff selection (non-selection/non-promotion)
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Procedure (first instance and UNAT)
Classification (post)
Jurisdiction / receivability (UNDT or first instance)
Subject matter (ratione materiae)
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...