Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Former Rule 111.3

  • 111.2(3)
  • 111.2(3)b
  • Appendix to the Staff Rules 1-D/E effective 2015 (Salary Scale Gaza and West Bank)
  • Former Rule 106.1(16)
  • Former Rule 111.3
  • Former Rule 111.3(2)
  • Former Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 103.3
  • Rule 103.5
  • Rule 103.8.1
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(7)
  • Rule 106.2(9)
  • Rule 106.3
  • Rule 106.3.1
  • Rule 106.4
  • Rule 106.4(8)
  • Rule 107.9
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.2
  • Rule 109.2(5)
  • Rule 109.2(7)
  • Rule 109.4
  • Rule 109.4(2)
  • Rule 109.4(3)
  • Rule 109.5
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(7)
  • Rule 109.9(3)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(1)
  • Rule 111.3
  • Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 111.4
  • Rule 112.3(D)
  • Rule 113.1
  • Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Staff Rule 111.2(5)
    • Showing 1 - 7 of 7
    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-331, Faraj

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-304, Al Surkhi et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

    2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-406, Chahrour

    On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-543, Abu Ayyash

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-542, Nielsen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2014/061. On the Appellant¡¯s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant¡¯s motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. On the Appellant¡¯s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-627, El Rush

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant¡¯s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-611, Chaaban

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...