Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari¡¯s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

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 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 considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-026bis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, when reviewing a sanction imposed by the Administration, it needed to examine whether the facts on which the sanction was based were established; whether the established facts legally amounted to misconduct; and whether the disciplinary measure applied was disproportionate to the offense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to discipline the staff member for misconduct. However, in light of the mitigating factors, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the disciplinary measure was disproportionate to the offense and substituted the disciplinary measure of demotion with that of a written...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Commissioner-General¡¯s decision to terminate the staff member for misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT emphasized the fact that the staff member, as a guard, held a position of trust that he had failed to respect. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that where termination of service is connected to any type of investigation of a staff member¡¯s possible misconduct, it must be reviewed as a disciplinary measure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the imposed sanction of separation was not disproportionate to the offense. Related judgments: 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-018 (Mahdi)

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, as it was filed within the time granted for re-filing. With regards to the issue of the Appellant¡¯s termination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA JAB¡¯s decision was legal, rational, and procedurally proper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was an exceptional case where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s services was disproportionate, more drastic than necessary. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the changes in the records that were made by the Appellant showed that she had originally not reflected that the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB¡¯s decision denying the staff member¡¯s request for restoration of her first participation period. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the amended Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF¡¯s Regulations only allowed for restoration of a participant¡¯s most recent period of contributory service and that the staff member had requested restoration of a participation period which was not the most recent one.