Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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. ...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour¡¯s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgments: it identified the...

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were unaware of various Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also reasoned prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgments do not...