Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 7.1(c)

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 11 - 16 of 16
    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-689, Shehadeh

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether the Appellant filed his appeal within the applicable time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the 60-day time limit to file an appeal expired on 11 April 2016 and the Appellant filed his appeal on 12 April 2016. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and that the Appellant did not request a waiver or extension of the deadline from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly did not need to address the Appellant¡¯s motion to submit additional evidence. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s holding, as it was clear that the Appellant did not meet the criteria for selection, and it was...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-614, Roberts

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member¡¯s bank account. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal had no merit, it...

    2018-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-860, Sirhan

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon¡¯s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and that...

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1049, Kisia

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant¡¯s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1152, Ashraf Zaqqout

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1055. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1120, Jose Daniel Arango

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General was correct to bide his time and to await the outcome on the merits before determining whether an appeal was necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal of the Secretary-General was not time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that Mr. Arango was a former staff member for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over the instant application: At the time of the contested decision not to select him Mr. Arango had been separated from service for more than two years, was no longer a staff member in the...