Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae was correct, since the Appellant had failed to challenge the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵTSO CHRO¡¯s response, the original administrative decision of 6 May 2015, by requesting a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Commissioner-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decisions not to grant Mr Abu Lehia sick leave for the specific time periods (28 March to 3 April 2016, 4 April to 17 May 2016, and 18 May 2016 to 7 June 2016) were not reasonable, given the specific factual circumstances of the case at hand and that these decisions were not a valid exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings and conclusions about illegality. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General failed to demonstrate any error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Agency¡¯s decision not to grant Mr Abu Lehia...

Both parties appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct regarding the non-receivability ratione materiae with respect to the first three decisions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, however, disagreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Administration had unlawfully delayed check-out, including his final payments and the submission of the required forms for his pension, since the period of three and a half months which was taken by the Administration to investigate and proceed with Mr Nchimbi¡¯s ¡°check-out¡± was not unreasonable in the given circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General's appeal and dismissed Mr Nchimbi¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law when it concluded that the procedure was flawed on the basis that it was not sufficient for the Assistant Secretary-General/Controller to countersign and approve the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCB recommendation and that a separate and reasoned decision was necessary for the regularity of the administrative procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in finding that there was a procedural delay and, therefore, granting compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment insofar as it awarded compensation for the procedural...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency¡¯s decision to conduct a...

Both parties appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred by finding a valid contract of employment between Ms Al Hallaj and ESCWA since no letter of appointment was issued, only an offer of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a quasi-contract was formed, considering that Ms Al Hallaj had unconditionally accepted and had fully fulfilled all the conditions specified in the offer of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the ESCWA Administration committed two major errors, in breach of its quasi-contractual obligations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ESCWA Administration failed in its due diligence to specify clearly and...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Secretary-General discharged his burden to establish the facts of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence in relation to all the allegations of wrongdoing regarding the special education grants. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence proved not only fraud in the form of false accounting, but also the uttering of forged and falsified documents to the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s behaviour constituted serious misconduct by which she enriched herself by approximately USD 50,000 at the expense of the Organisation...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that, while ASC No. A/04/2010 did not provide a right to Mr Abusondous to receive an AAA, he did have an expectation that the Agency would ¡°properly exercise its discretion to grant an AAA and [would] be fair in its dealings with him¡±, was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no fault with the reasoning that the Agency¡¯s justification of the decision not to appoint Mr Abusondous as Officer-in-Charge and not to grant him an AAA, namely that the Agency would not have been able to meet the 120-day maximum period to fill the vacancy, was not a reasonable ground for the denial...

A matter cannot be before the MEU and the Dispute Tribunal simultaneously and allowing applicants to circumvent this process and file applications with the Tribunal before the deadline for a response to a request for management evaluation has passed would contravene the Tribunal¡¯s Statute and Rules of Procedure, undermine the time lines set out in the Staff Rules, and would be contrary to the intentions of the General Assembly.