Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant¡¯s claim that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rules...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that it was not the role of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Noting that no request to waive the deadline was received, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable for failure to appeal within the statutory deadline.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, absent a request for waiver or extension of the time limits as well as any factors that would qualify as exceptional circumstances, the appeal was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did...

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in light of which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judge, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...