¹ú²úAV

UNAT noted that, in considering an appeal filed by a former ICAO staff member, it was reviewing a decision taken by an executive authority (i. e. ICAO Secretary-General) on the basis of the conclusions and recommendations of the AJAB, and not a judgment delivered by a professional, independent court of first instance determining the issue itself through its decision, i. e., UNDT. UNAT held that to that extent, the UNAT Statute is only applicable to such an appeal insofar as, and on condition that its provisions are compatible with the judgment of an appeal directed against a decision taken by an executive authority. UNAT, having carefully examined the background documents upon which AJAB based its appraisal of the case, was not convinced by the motives given in the disputed decision not to follow its conclusions and recommendations and by the line of argument in defence. UNAT held that the Appellant had grounds for relying on the support of AJAB’s conclusions and was therefore entitled to request that those conclusions be confirmed. UNAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ICAO Secretary-General’s decision. As an alternative to rescission, UNAT ordered payment of compensation in-lieu.