2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1524, Maria Alejandra Mouchabek
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the staff member¡¯s letter regarding early retirement was to be considered a letter of resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that a few months later she had sent another letter to the Administration requesting to withdraw her resignation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had not erred in law when it identified the contested decision as the decision not to accept the staff member¡¯s withdrawal of her resignation, and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s approach had not caused prejudice to her as it had been able to examine all her contentions.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the staff member¡¯s resignation produced its legal...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1525, Abdurrahman Turk
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT nevertheless noted that the staff member¡¯s application filed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the staff member sought to...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2025/018, Peter Stockholder
In the present case, according to the Applicant¡¯s own submissions, he was not in a situation of ¡°an absolute impossibility¡± of filing a timely waiver as per Karki. Instead, while apparently being aware of expiry of the deadline, he continued to work intensely on preparing the application, and rather than giving priority to filing it in time, he instead wanted it ¡°to be perfect¡±. When then filing the application, the Applicant, however, made no reference to it being filed too late or indicating that he requested a waiver of the 90-day deadline under art. 8.3 of the Statute. He only requested a...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1522, Sanjaya Bahel
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member¡¯s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT further held that the Administration¡¯s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration¡¯s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1520, Shahd Ghabbash
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the staff member¡¯s transfer request had been approved by the West Bank Field Office but the Jordan Field Office had subsequently informed that the request could not be accommodated due to a commitment to the roadmap on hiring daily-paid workers in fixed-term posts.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Commissioner-General had demonstrated the efforts made by both Field Offices to process the transfer request and the Agency¡¯s burden to show that the request had been given full and fair consideration was satisfied. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the staff member had not discharged the burden of...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1521, Mahmoud Mohamad Zeidan
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the vacancy had been advertised for only ten days which violated the mandatory requirement of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA Personnel Directive, and this violation had been corrected by cancelling the recruitment process and constituting another one that met the requirement of the minimum posting period.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the staff member had not identified the alleged defects of the impugned Judgment but rather had reargued his case and, therefore, had not discharged his burden of satisfying the Appeals Tribunal that the impugned Judgment had been in error.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT was of the view that, in...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1519, Fernando Salon
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT rejected Mr. Salon¡¯s argument that the prior Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Judgment made incorrect findings of fact regarding the dates that he made requests for management evaluation or filed complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Mr. Salon was not seeking clarification of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Judgment but was rather attempting to relitigate his case, which is not an appropriate use of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute¡¯s provisions for an application for interpretation.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that there was no ambiguity in its Judgment and there was no basis for the application for interpretation. The meaning and scope of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Judgment was clear...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1518, Humphreys Timothy Shumba
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that, since the purpose of compensation in lieu is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would have been had the Organization complied with its contractual obligations, the net base salary to be paid in accordance with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Judgment was the net base salary that the former staff member would have earned at the date of the contested decision and his separation from service, namely 20 May 2021. Therefore, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT concluded that the Secretary-General¡¯s calculation of two years¡¯ net base salary was appropriate.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT further held that the deductions made for...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2025/017, Kamel NK
The Respondent argued that the discontinuation of the Applicant¡¯s position was distinct from the non-renewal of his position. The Tribunal rejected this argument. The Tribunal found that the decision-maker linked the discontinuation of the Applicant's post with the non-renewal. The Tribunal held that the discontinuation and non-renewal were inextricably interrelated and therefore the application was receivable. The Respondent¡¯s argument that the claim was not receivable ratione temporis was rejected.
The Respondent¡¯s distinction, while perhaps academically correct, would make receivability no...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1517, Ayesha Al Rifai
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT did not err in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support that the applicant had engaged in abuse of authority by intimidating a staff member to file a false complaint of sexual harassment against another staff member. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT weighed the conflicting testimonies and assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found that she had a motive to solicit the false complaint.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT did not err in declining to review the other misconduct allegations against her, given that the abuse of authority allegation was the...