Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 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...

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 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.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it found that Mustafa et al. had been informed of the impugned decision to deny a request to set their grade level at Grade 14 on 19 March 2018. Neither did it err when it found that the applications were not receivable, because the requests for decision review were submitted after the deadline.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in concluding that the Agency had failed to observe its own regulatory framework and failed to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly in exercising its discretion. The discretion of the Commissioner-General to reject a request for these benefits such as EVS is not unfettered.

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour¡¯s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, although the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT in Mr Dabbour¡¯s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was nothing to indicate why Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and found the supervisor¡¯s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor¡¯s request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...