Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no room for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to substitute its decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT referred to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and held that the Appellant did not show any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and her claims on appeal could not succeed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found no fault in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that there was no retaliation against the Appellant and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, nor did it commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was within the discretion of the Agency to close the case against the PMO and that the Agency has no authority to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment be vacated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant¡¯s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of the consolidated applications. With respect to the first issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish that the decision not to confirm his appointment as TDSE Advisor and to transfer him to his previous post was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no merit in the Appellant¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to examine the relevant facts and to apply legal and regulatory provisions to his performance evaluations during his probationary period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also noted that the review of the Appellant¡¯s performance assessments...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA in tranche 2 list. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...