Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The establishment of the fact-finding panel, as statutorily required, renders the application moot.

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 held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the reasons for the delay asserted by the Appellant justified a 17-month late appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would consider only the time issues because the case was so clearly out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that any alleged error by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in considering the merits was moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant¡¯s appeal before the JAB. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-050/Corr. 1, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Secretary-General¡¯s submission that the appeal was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the claim was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Al-Mulla¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-226. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.