Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

PD A/10/Rev.3

  • Area Staff Personnel Directive No. A/4/Part II, Rev. 8/Section I
  • IPD 1/10
  • IPD/I/104.4
  • IPD/I/112.6/Rev.1
  • PD 1/4/Part I/Rev.1
  • PD A/10
  • PD A/10/Rev.1
  • PD A/10/Rev.3
  • PD A/17
  • PD A/2/Part.II/Rev. 4
  • PD A/23
  • PD A/3
  • PD A/4/Part II/Rev.7
  • PD A/4/Part VII/Rev.7
  • PD A/5/Part II
  • PD A/5/Rev.7/Part II
  • PD A/6/Amend.12/Part III
  • PD A/6/Amend.72
  • PD A/6/Part II/Amend.2
  • PD A/6/Part VI
  • PD A/60
  • PD A/9
  • PD A/9/Rev.10
  • PD I/104.2
  • PD No.A/3/Rev.1/Part XI/Amend.5
  • PD/A/1/Rev.1/Par1/Section 1
  • PD/A/4/Part II/ Rev.7/Section 1
    • Showing 1 - 6 of 6
    2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1594, Ismail Mahmoud Awadat

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Dispute Tribunal did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s misconduct was established and that the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnity, was proportionate under the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that fraud and collusive practices are considered areas of high concern and that misconduct committed by a person in a position of trust, such as a member of the Provident Fund Loans Committee, warrants a severe sanction.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

    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-1514, Nadim El Haj

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even though the Commissioner-General had mistakenly reimbursed the fine to Mr. El-Haj after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, since the fine was subsequently reimposed, the appeal was not moot.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in order to find that a staff member¡¯s conduct was ¡°serious misconduct¡± so as to warrant a more serious sanction, the Commissioner-General had to provide reasons for this determination. In this case, the Commissioner-General provided no reasons, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Commissioner-General¡¯s argument that reasons were not necessary because it was manifestly...

    2024-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1507, Mahmoud Ahmad Ali

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the staff member¡¯s argument that his ex-wife¡¯s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1297, Eman Abed & Osama Abed

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

    2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...