Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it relied on ST/AI/20100/4/Rev.1 (Administration of Temporary Appointments) in finding that the staff member¡¯s performance evaluation was made in accordance with the procedural requirements in that Administrative Instruction. ST/AI/2021/4 (Performance Management and Development System) does not apply to Mr. Fagasinski¡¯s performance evaluation, because the aforementioned Instruction explicitly states that it does not apply to temporary appointments.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the purpose of the performance evaluation was not to reexamine whether Mr...

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¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had appropriately concluded that Mr. Issa failed to submit a timely Request for Decision Review regarding the first of three months¡¯ non-payment of his salary. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, since each non-payment constitutes a separate administrative decision, Mr. Issa's Request for Decision Review regarding the second- and third-months¡¯ non-payment was timely, rendering his application partially receivable.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further concluded however, that since Mr. Issa disregarded a directive circulated before his annual leave (when he was able to check his e-mail)...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the staff member¡¯s challenge to the non?installation of dependents receivable because the request for management evaluation was filed outside the mandatory 60?day deadline under Staff Rule 11.2(c). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute prohibits waiving or suspending this deadline and that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT acted beyond its jurisdiction by deciding that the Administration had waived the timeliness argument.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the denial of the optional reduced non?family service allowance was...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that the former staff member...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in concluding that the contested decision by the OAI to close the staff member¡¯s complaint was lawful. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Administration acted reasonably in determining that the allegations lacked sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation and that the assessment process complied with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDP¡¯s legal framework.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly rejected the staff member¡¯s procedural arguments, including claims of bias and denial of witness testimony. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized that the proposed witnesses could not have altered the established...