Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact in concluding that the ABCC had solely and exclusively rested upon the MSD¡¯s medical report, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in stating that the time limit under Article 12 of Appendix D would only start to run from the moment when the psychological symptoms were so severe that the patient acknowledged that his/her syndrome no longer allowed him/her to fulfill his/her professional obligations. In the light of the facts that the Applicant was able to return to his high level of functioning at work after he had been transferred out of HATIS on 1 December 2013, that...

The impugned Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Order clearly comes within its competence to issue appropriate case management orders. It did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 123, and Mr. Zaqqout is not prevented from attacking the interlocutory order later if he appeals the final judgment of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT on the merits.

Contrary to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding, Mr. Kollie¡¯s letter of 7 June 2007 to the ABCC cannot be regarded as a request under Article 17 of the Appendix D to convene a medical board and reconsider the Secretary-General¡¯s decision. Nor can the emails of 25/27 July 2017 and 24 August 2017 be regarded as a review of the 16 May 2017 decision of the Secretary-General or an administrative decision under Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. The emails of 25/27 July 2017 constituted an implied appealable decision by the ABCC to reject Mr. Kollie¡¯s claim for reimbursement of his out-of-pocket expenses. But...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the source of the Secretary-General¡¯s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General¡¯s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not detect any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not reviewable. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had individual adverse impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the ICSC decision...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...

Appeals dismissed, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgments upheld. The Tribunals do not have reviewability of ICSC decisions, they do have jurisdiction to review the Secretary-General¡¯s mechanical power in implementing such decisions on narrow grounds for legality. The ICSC decision to adjust the salary scale and post-adjustment allowance multiplier was not a reviewable decision. The Secretary-General¡¯s implementation of that decision was an administrative decision as it was not a general policy but had adverse individual impact per staff member via their payslips and was therefore receivable. While receivable the...