Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

As to the Secretary-General's cross-appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's decision on receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct not to dismiss the claims as unreceivable, but to investigate their merits.

Turning to the merits, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that death benefits under the Rules are not payable to beneficiaries nominated by a staff member, but to designated beneficiaries as defined by the Staff Rules (i.e. the surviving spouse or dependent children). The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Mr. Oming survived Ms. Oming and the substantial preponderance of...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and there is no need for further clarification through an oral hearing.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any errors when it found that the staff member¡¯s application was irreceivable ratione materiae.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly held that the staff member had knowledge of the alleged constructive dismissal on either the date that he reiterated his resignation, or at the latest when Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF accepted his resignation. His request for management...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in holding that there had been clear and convincing evidence that the staff member harassed other staff members over a substantial period of time, and that this behaviour constituted serious misconduct. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the seven allegations that Ms. Iram used abusive language, made insulting remarks, shouted and bullied individuals, engaged in inappropriate touching, and made unwelcome contacts with individuals at their homes after working hours. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the staff member¡¯s due...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant¡¯s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant¡¯s supervisors as witnesses. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

Mr. Younis appealed. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that after perusing the PHP submitted by Mr. Younis, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had held that the suitability review was correct. The PHP confirmed the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Younis¡¯ work experience. The total number of years of his experience for the two criteria had been properly arrived at by first determining if the nature of his work experience fulfilled the relevant criteria and then the number of years for which he had served in relevant roles was computed for both criteria. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if Mr. Younis was given the benefit of the doubt on the...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there is no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...