Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had not issued a judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and...