Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Mobility AI was not a decision of ¡°individual application¡± but a general instruction applicable to all staff members who entered on duty on or after 1 October 2023, as Ms. Stepanova did.

Ms. Stepanova was attempting to modify the terms of appointment or the contract of employment, by exempting herself from the application of the Mobility AI and she was therefore not challenging ¡°non-compliance¡± with ¡°the terms of appointment or the contract of employment¡±, which is what is required under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that her claim was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it found Ms. Fakhouri¡¯s application was receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite being a staff member, the decision with which Ms. Fakhouri took issue was one which related to the terms of a potential contract not as a staff member but as an independent contractor and therefore the contested decision was not one that was appealable. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute makes clear that appeals can be brought against administrative decisions where such decisions relate to the staff member¡¯s terms of appointment. But the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 9(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s restructuring of the finance function was a genuine exercise and a proper use of the Administration¡¯s discretion in responding to evolving needs. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not agree that the Administration acted unfairly or unjustly in abolishing the former staff member¡¯s post. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that consultation with the former staff member was not required prior to the abolition of her post.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s dissatisfaction with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence of workplace issues between her and her supervisor does not...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the contested decision was a separation decision hinged on expiration of an appointment, and not a termination decision based on abolition of post or reduction of staff. The former staff member did not fall within the category of staff with the right to be considered on a preferential basis for retention and the Administration did not have an obligation to find him an alternative and suitable position following the abolition or reclassification exercise.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that although the former staff member was informed in his non-renewal letter that he would be placed on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member had no legitimate expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment, as there was no evidence that the Administration had made any express promise that would have created such an expectation. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration had properly informed all affected staff, including the former staff member, of the last date of the MADAD Project and advertised 15 clerical posts internally, inviting staff to apply for alternative positions. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that these actions should be viewed in light of the continuous efforts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the Administration¡¯s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member¡¯s position from...

The application was dismissed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld...

The management evaluation response was sent to the Applicant on Friday, 7 May 2020, at 10:51 a.m., New York time (EDT), which was 5:51 p.m. in East Jerusalem and Ramallah. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP sent the RME Response after working hours in the duty station, at the start of the Applicant¡¯s weekend (which was Saturday and Sunday), and during the traditional weekend in the oPt which is Friday and Saturday. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT therefore determined that the first full day of the delivery of the email was 8 May 2020, which means that the 90-day count under art. 8.1(d)(i)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute started from 9 May 2020. The...