Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT could not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Andrysek. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has: (a) exceeded its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal by the Secretary-General and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that the sanction of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Patkar. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the Appellant's argument that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact, law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction in concluding that the Appellant had not been granted sick leave that was then terminated or retracted. The MSD email to the Appellant concerned an evaluation of her fitness to work based on the medical report she had submitted and there was no evidence that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOPS Administration had approved such leave. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that that the Appellant¡¯s entitlement to sick leave did not outlive the expiration of the fixed-term appointment as...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in its...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no errors in the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant¡¯s application was irreceivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant was notified of the decision not to shortlist him by e-mail of 14 November 2019. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegations regarding the abolishment of his post had no legal relevance for the appeal, which dealt only with issues of receivability. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment.