Ãå±±½ûµØ

Rule 111.1(2)

  • Rule 102.2(13)
  • Rule 102.2(14)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.1(11)
  • Rule 111.(7)
  • Rule 111.1 (18)
  • Rule 111.1.(8)
  • Rule 111.1(10)
  • Rule 111.1(2)
  • Rule 111.1(20)
  • Rule 111.1(3)
  • Rule 111.1(5)
  • Rule 111.1(6)
    • Showing 1 - 2 of 2

    2023-UNAT-1312, RoseMarie Heftberger

    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)

    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...

    Full judgment
    Case digest

    2018-UNAT-857, Clemente

    Classification (post) Jurisdiction / receivability (UNAT) Temporal (ratione temporis)

    UNAT held that the Appellant failed to challenge the decision that denied the reclassification of her post from a G-8 to a P-2 position within the deadlines of the ICAO Staff Rules 111. 1(7) and 111. 1(5), confirming AJAB’s finding. UNAT held that there is no obligation of the ICAO Secretary-General to provide a staff member with guidance on the appeals procedure and to advise regarding the time limits. UNAT held that it does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the claims the Appellant raises on appeal against the decision that her post was incorrectly classified at the G-8 level...

    Full judgment
    Case digest