Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that two e-mail exchanges between Ms. Nimusiima and a former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR staff member (AM) were the only documentary evidence offered to establish Ms. Nimusiima¡¯s culpability in issuing a fraudulent resettlement letter in exchange for a bribe.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had concluded that these e-mail exchanges showed that Ms. Nimusiima acted in concert with AM, but that they were nonetheless ¡°equivocal¡± (unclear/vague), ¡°purely circumstantial¡± and did not prove with high probability that AM had sent the fraudulent resettlement letter to the Complainant (the alleged refugee).

With regard to...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it was evident from a perusal of the appeal brief that Mr. Hammad did not argue that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed any error of fact or law. He merely presented the same arguments that he had already made in his application for revision before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and failed to demonstrate how the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that with no evidence of a manifest abuse of proceedings by the Commissioner-General before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, nor any finding by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT of such an abuse of proceedings, the legal cost orders made by the Dispute Tribunal did not accord with the terms of Article 10 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute and were therefore unjustified and could not be sustained. Moreover, if the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the legal costs were awarded by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT under Article 10(5)(b) (which was not apparent from the Judgment), there existed no basis to justify such an order given the evidence before the Dispute...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the staff member had telecommuted from his home country for the entire academic year. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that payment of the educational grant required the physical presence of the staff member at their official duty station, with such payment to be suspended or adjusted for the period that they were telecommuting from outside the official duty station.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not open to the staff member to rely on a defence that the Administration be estopped from relying on the applicable provisions in its interpretation of the circumstances under which the education...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision, finding that none of the alleged new facts were ¡°new facts¡± for the purpose of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The alleged new facts either occurred after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, were known to the Appeals Tribunal, or matters of law.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the application for correction in part, to the extent that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ms. Raschdorf's argument that an error arose in paragraph 44 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment where the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT wrongly referred to the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims instead of the Pension Fund.

Finally, the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly identified several procedural irregularities in the contested decision. Pursuant to paragraph 9 of the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) Technical Instruction 02/2016 on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s Investigation Policy (DTI 02/2016), the investigation should have been authorized within 10 days of the Intake Committee¡¯s report; yet here, the authorization to investigate took 11 months to be given. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that this delay was so excessive that it would distress an average person.

Analyzing the evidence presented by the staff member regarding the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that Mr. Qasem's application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT challenging the decision to place him on administrative leave with pay was filed untimely and was therefore not receivable ratione temporis. Furthermore, his application contesting the decision to conduct various investigations of him was not receivable ratione materiae in the absence of a request for decision review.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts upon which the staff member relied in his application for revision all post-dated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment and therefore could not serve as a basis for revising or reconsidering the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s prior conclusions. In particular, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s medical record, indicating a change in his condition after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Judgment, did not constitute grounds for revising it.

However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the staff member¡¯s request for anonymity for the present Judgment only, given the limited scope of the issues raised and the specific facts...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s attempts to reargue her case failed to identify any reviewable error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, warranting alone dismissal of her appeal. In any event, regardless of the merits of her claim, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that her application was time-barred under Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute since she filed it 27 years after her receipt of the contested decision. Recalling that there is no authority given to either tribunal to extend time limits in these circumstances, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct to conclude that her application was not receivable.

The...