After Mr. Yousef¡¯s appeal and the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal had been submitted, Mr. Yourself filed a motion to withdraw the appeal based on the fact that an internal settlement had been agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA and the Commissioner-General filed a motion to withdraw the cross-appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT directed the Registrar to close the case.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter¡¯s employment situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant¡¯s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal, specifically as to whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision to award special allowances for extra duties performed and compensation for moral damages was an error in law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. With respect to the allowance for extra duties, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that it is settled in its jurisprudence that the Agency has discretionary powers to pay the special allowances, which must be exercised reasonably in accordance with their substantive legal requirements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no room for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to substitute its decision...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency¡¯s...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed errors of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in its assessment of the alleged victim¡¯s credibility. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s understanding, there was no record that the alleged victim had stated that she had been sexually attacked by the Appellant on previous occasions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in drawing a negative inference about the credibility of the alleged victim from her delayed reporting. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA erred in its assessment of the Appellant¡¯s credibility, in particular...
As preliminary matters, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that: (1) an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditions and fair disposal of the case, noting that the issues of jurisdiction and receivability did not require oral testimony and argument for the fair disposal of the appeal; (2) an order for production of documents was not necessary; (3) the Registry would provide an Arabic translation of the judgment; and (4) the Appellant¡¯s in-session motion, viewed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT as a veiled motion for additional pleadings and a request for adjournment, was denied for lack of exceptional circumstances, noting that the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error of law in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the non-extension of the limited duration contract was a result of the elimination of her post due to a lack of funds, which constituted a valid reason proffered by the Administration for not renewing her appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by applying objective criteria in the reduction of the staffing levels, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA adhered to the principles of equality...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all of the Appellant¡¯s grounds of appeal failed, except for his challenge to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA decision not to renew or extend the Appellant¡¯s limited duration contract beyond its final extension, for the simple reason that those several decisions to extend his contract advantaged him by adding, in total, six months to his contract. On the issue of the Appellant¡¯s non-renewal or final extension, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s reasoning and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA was justified in deciding not to renew or extend his employment, noting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA faced a massive financial shortfall...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, and remanded the matter to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for proper...
