Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2011/209 (on liability) and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/062 (on relief). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no evidence to support the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that, had the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Staff Pension Committee (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵSPC) not proceeded with its determination, Ms Shanks would more likely than not have been found fit to resume her duties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only valid conclusion available on the medical evidence was that Ms Shanks was not entitled to return to work on a part-time basis since she was not able to obtain medical clearance permitting it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily dismissed the Appellant¡¯s Application for Confidentiality and then considered the merits of the Appeal, which contained three grounds. With respect to the first ground, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that due process was satisfied if the staff member could comment on anonymous witness statements providing evidence against him. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the reasons for withholding the identities of the victims and for not producing them at trial were contained in the OIOS Investigation Report that was sent to the Appellant, thus the conditions for the admissibility for...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was not disputed that the evidence given by Mr Verwey (a witness called by the staff member) regarding the alleged falsification of allegations of breach of confidentiality by the staff member¡¯s former supervisor and the former Deputy Inspector-General, was not disclosed in Mr Verwey¡¯s summary of evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in not attaching any importance to this omission. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the summary that was provided was vastly different from the oral evidence given by Mr Verwey. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Registry. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT...

On appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to show that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for his witness to be called. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no mention of any witness in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and that it was not clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had considered that evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for not calling the witness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/027. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to consider that it...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, specifically whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...