Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member because he worked with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS for over three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Toure is binding precedent on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as it applied to the Appellant¡¯s case and found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law or fact in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

As a preliminary matter, in response to the Appellant¡¯s request for interim measures, in which she requested that the Secretary-General complied with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it had not been appealed against, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion on the basis that execution should have been requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. On the Appellant¡¯s motion to strike assertions and evidence, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was supplementing her appeal, and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was limited to the request for further compensation, as per the Appellant¡¯s Power of Attorney document, and...

Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal in Case No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to find that the facts supporting the disciplinary measure had been established and to conclude that those facts amounted to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT supported the reasoning of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s attempts at exoneration, namely that factors such as whether or not her husband was qualified for the job or the other candidate secured another position did not change the existence of a conflict of interest and the way in which the integrity of the process was compromised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found...