Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in fact or law and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld such conclusions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were errors by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and had no standing. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

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 dismissed the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that in any case the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

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...