Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that accounting for factors such as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID¡¯s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate¡¯s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General¡¯s discretion to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that neither the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute nor the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party¡¯s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, which notes that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s claim that he should be considered a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff member because he worked with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS for over three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

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...