Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

Mr. Hammond¡¯s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond¡¯s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond¡¯s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a ¡°conversion¡± or an ¡°abolishment¡± because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond¡¯s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.

The impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Order clearly comes within its competence to issue appropriate case management orders. It did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 123, and Mr. Zaqqout is not prevented from attacking the interlocutory order later if he appeals the final judgment of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT on the merits.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the source of the Secretary-General¡¯s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not detect any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, because Mr. Sirhan did not present any decisive fact which could lead to a revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with the staff member that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...