Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that requesting management evaluation was a mandatory first step. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that that the Personnel Action forms could not be construed as adequately notifying the Appellant of the relevant administrative decision to process his retirement and separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the memorandum that gave instructions pertaining to the Appellant¡¯s separation from service and repatriation to his home country triggered the time limit to seek management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to seek a management evaluation within that time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable in that it failed to identify an administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law when it found that there was a breach of Mr Elobaid¡¯s due process rights, as Mr Elobaid was correctly apprised of the allegations against him, which could lead to administrative action, and was afforded the opportunity to make representations against the measure taken. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, when it assumed that the reprimand originated from Mr Ward, of the Chief Programme Support and Management Services at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was clearly outside the time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant¡¯s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

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...

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.