Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision had no merit. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted furthermore that the applicant¡¯s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in the prior proceedings.

In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded...

Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Radu had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to support his request for anonymity and accordingly dismissed his request.

The Appeals Board dismissed Mr. Radu¡¯s appeal in relation to Appeals Board Decision No. 1. The Appeals Tribunal found that even if the Staff Rule was to be interpreted as to require consultation with the Medical Clinic at that time, the Organization¡¯s failure to abide by the Staff Rule would not render the decision void ab initio.

Turning to the appeal against Appeals Board Decision No. 2 to...

The Appeals Tribunal found, in relation to Mr. Qasem¡¯s exclusion from consideration for the Acting Head position, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding Mr. Qasem¡¯s application not receivable. The Appeals Tribunal however found that in the circumstances of this case, it was in the interest of judicial economy to review the case on the merits without remand. The Appeals Tribunal found that while the Administration had unlawfully excluded Mr. Qasem¡¯s application from consideration, this irregularity had no impact on the selection decision. Considering Mr. Qasem¡¯s performance, administrative and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the central tenet of the staff member¡¯s case, which was that he held the necessary academic qualifications for the role, but that the selected candidate did not. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the educational specifications in the job vacancy announcement were a minimum threshold, but not the determining factor in the selection. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that both the staff member and the selected candidate met the threshold academic qualifications, even though they obtained them by different means. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the claim that the ITLOS should not have taken into account that the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly identified Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP as the respondent in the present case because it was Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP that administered the staff member¡¯s position and was therefore his employer. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2023/036...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, Mr. Lago¡¯s reliance on additional evidence without filing a motion, was inadmissible.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, there was no evidence that a specific request for an occupational health evaluation, made by Mr. Lago, in an individual capacity to an appropriate official, was refused or ignored. Additionally, Mr. Lago¡¯s requests mirrored his persistent attempts to challenge a perceived wrong, which on its own cannot be perceived as an implied administrative decision.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of a clear request capable of giving rise to an...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the new arguments and evidence submitted to the Appeals Tribunal for the first time that were aimed to show that Mr. El-Anani had not read the attachment of the e-mail that communicated the disciplinary sanction.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT confirmed that, the two Microsoft Outlook notification records acknowledged by Mr. El-Anani indicated that the contested decision had been delivered to and read by him on 28 March 2023 and that he was therefore required to file his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT by no later than 26 June 2023. Since Mr. Al-Anani did not file the application until 28 June 2023...