The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.
The...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the recommendation report did not provide any explanation to understand the rationale of the non-selection decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that no information had been given in the course of the judicial proceedings either as to why the external candidate was the most suitable candidate. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, for the sake of reasonableness, fairness and transparency, it was expected from the Administration to give relevant and true reasons supporting its ultimate choice. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made an error of fact...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s travel was not authorized pursuant to Staff Rule 7.10 because she had just one approved day of annual leave on 24 June 2021 followed by a period of R&R from the 12 July to 16 July 2021. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Administration took the appropriate action by sending her on 25 July 2021 an e-mail reminding her that all the international staff members had to submit their Sudanese visa renewal application in a timely manner. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the events that delayed the Appellant¡¯s return to her duty station could not be construed as force majeure as they...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Turk¡¯s request for an oral hearing, and found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to order the production of additional documents.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the legal framework which provides that staff members have no legitimate expectation of any renewal of their fixed-term appointments. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also confirmed that the Tribunals will not interfere with the Organization¡¯s discretion in restructuring decisions, and that the Tribunals have no authority to review General Assembly decisions related to administrative and budgetary matters. In this case, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...
As a preliminary matter, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Qassem¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had been clearly defined by the parties and moreover, an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since Mr. Qassem¡¯s fixed-term appointment was extended beyond 31 March 2020, with no effect given to the initial administrative decision not to renew his employment beyond this date, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the application was moot since the administrative decision...
Mr. Moulana appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵATnoted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed Mr. Moulana's application on the grounds of insufficient evidence, whereas he had not been afforded the opportunity to provide the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by failing to address the Appellant¡¯s requests for the production of documents, including ignoring his motion, violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights and deprived him of the opportunity to have his motion assessed and possibly granted, following which he could have submitted the pieces of evidence which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found he failed to provide. Therefore...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly exercised its broad discretion with regard to its case management in concluding that the record before it was sufficient to render a decision without an oral hearing. It concluded that the Appellant has not presented any grounds as to why an oral hearing would have been necessary and thus did not show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion in such manner as to affect the outcome of the case, as required by Article 2(1)(d) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.
With regard to the Appellant¡¯s argument that the non-selection decision was unlawful because...
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT but which it did not accept.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...
