Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 9.2

  • 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 - 13 of 13
    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1572, Nader Slayyeh

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Slayyeh did not file a proper appeal of the impugned Judgment but rather was bringing a new claim for compensation that had not been submitted to the Dispute Tribunal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not introduce on appeal an issue not previously presented to the first instance tribunal as it is a violation of the due process rights of the other party and does not comply with the two-tier system of administration of justice.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the remedies available under Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute allow the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to rescind the contested decision or order...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1562, Rasha Aladdin Al Osta

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the interview panel had nominated the staff member as one of the recommended candidates for appointment to the post but the Recruitment Report had been erroneously silent as to whether she had been considered on an equivalency basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the advisory committee had subsequently found that her experience did not qualify her for equivalency and that she had not met the educational qualifications.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that because the staff member had been wrongly shortlisted, her participation in the remainder of the recruitment process had been unlawful and any...

    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1541, Mirriam Nalugya Kiingi

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings had been based on credible evidence when it determined that the staff member¡¯s son had contracted Covid-19; he had been treated under the supervision of her primary medical care provider; and payment had been made based on invoices from that provider reflecting the care he had provided.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that in light of the testimony of the staff member¡¯s witnesses, including herself and the medical professional who had treated her son, it had not been erroneous for the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to conclude that the Administration had failed to establish the medical...