2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1556, IK
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1553, Dua Smadi
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT, in its Judgment, had ordered the Commissioner-General to pay Ms. Smadi the difference between the salaries and associated entitlements between her Grade of HL6 and step and the Grade HL7 and step to which she was entitled from 1 August 2017.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the language of the order was unequivocal, as were its terms. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that it had been also clearly expressed in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT Judgment that the US Prime Rate should apply as of 30 May 2023. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT Judgment, in turn, had been unambiguously affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1552, Catalin Gicu Tomeci
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT correctly concluded that the former staff member committed misconduct by repeatedly violating, over more than a year and a half, the rules prohibiting his wife from staying overnight with him in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµMISS compound of a non-family duty station, without authorization or payment of the required accommodation fees, despite multiple warnings and a prior reprimand.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT also confirmed that, during a counselling session, the former staff member threatened to kill his wife and any staff member to protect their marriage and his perceived right to cohabitation. It agreed...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1551, Leonid Dolgopolov
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests ¡°to clarify¡± the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2025/048, Zainab El-Sibaii
The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant¡¯s First Reporting Officer¡¯s (¡°FRO¡±) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of ¡°Successfully Meets Expectations¡±, the comments of the Applicant¡¯s Second Reporting Officer (¡°SRO¡±) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant ¡°consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively¡± and commending her ¡°ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1550, Reza Kavosh
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT in an Order.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2025/045, Dorah Likukela
The Tribunal held:
a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.
b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.
c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1549, Aileen Baraza
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. It found that the staff member did, in fact, challenge an administrative decision which she claimed was in non-compliance with her terms of employment. Consequently, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order the conduct of an investigation or take other courses of action concerning the staff member¡¯s allegations and complaints. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT concluded that, by instead finding the staff member¡¯s application not receivable, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT acted in contravention of Section 5.6 of...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1548, Ghazal Ozairi
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT rejected the former staff member¡¯s motion for anonymity, as it was filed out of time and without exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit.
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµRWA DT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable. The 60-day period within which she had to submit a request for decision review (RDR) began on 13 September 2023 and ended on 11 November 2023. As her RDR was lodged (i.e., received by the Agency) late on 11 November 2023, it was lodged within the statutory time limit. However, in the absence of a...
2025-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-1547, Inas Margieh
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the creation of the position of Deputy Special Representative (DSR), undertaken as part of the implementation of the recommendations to restructure the oPt Office, constituted an administrative decision of a general nature. It further concluded that although the newly established ToR for the DSR position transferred to the incumbent some duties and responsibilities that were previously part of the staff member¡¯s Terms of Reference (ToR), this reallocation alone was insufficient to conclude that the creation of the position of DSR produced direct legal consequences for the...