Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The staff member submitted a claim for compensation for an injury attributable to the performance of official duties. The Advisory Board on Compensation Claims found her claim time-barred. She requested the Advisory Board to reconsider her claim and attached a new claim form, which stated a new date of the injury. She subsequently filed many claims and requests for reviews of alleged decisions and ¡°non decisions¡± concerning the processing of her claim.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it had rendered its prior Judgment in which it held that the staff member¡¯s application challenging alleged decisions and...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its prior Judgment the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had found that the staff member knew or reasonably should have known of the contested decisions from the date he was notified by email of the reclassification of his post, or at the very latest on the date the initial job opening was advertised on Inspira.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new fact that the vacancy for the post was filled 13 months after the staff member left the Organization would not have materially impacted the outcome of its prior Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly found the application for revision not receivable ratione...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2025/001.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa¡¯s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s directives to advise the Agency of his...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision must fail since no new and decisive fact has been shown to exist that was unknown to Mr. Bernard and the Appeals Tribunal when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment was made which would have materially impacted the outcome of said Judgment

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that there may have been some ambiguity in paragraph 104 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment for which the Secretary-General requested interpretation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appropriate interpretation was that when the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT renders its new decision on Article 10(5) and 10(6) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, then the non-prevailing party may appeal the new Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety, including the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding on the merits.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Secretary-General¡¯s application for interpretation is admissible and granted. It further noted that once the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT fully exercises its jurisdiction on...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the unexplained delay of almost a year in filing the request for interpretation would alone cause the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to reject it. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in addition, the request for interpretation lacked a jurisdictional basis. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member had demonstrated no equivocality or lack of clarity of the Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that the request for execution relied on the staff member¡¯s success in having the earlier Judgment interpreted in the manner he sought and, therefore, his request for execution was moot. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that the Judgment had...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Agency had removed the disputed Note from the staff member¡¯s Official Status File and provided him with his requested certificate of service and performance evaluations. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal in the respective part had therefore become moot.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if the issue were not moot, it was not persuaded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵWRA DT had exercised its discretion injudiciously or otherwise erred. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that in its earlier Judgment it had found that the Agency had no obligation to partially execute that first Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff...