Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Commissioner-General appealed.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that insofar as the Agency's decision of 25 April 2019 rejecting the request for an SPOA might not have been unequivocal, that decision was reiterated in the e-mail of 17 June 2019 leaving no doubt that the Agency had decided then to pay Ms. Abou Salah an SPOA of 15 per cent rather than 25 per cent, possibly in breach of her contract. The fact that other persons subsequently sought to intervene on her behalf did not change that.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ms. Abou Salah¡¯s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA staff members. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT was incorrect in finding that the reminder letters were not reprimands for the purposes of Appellants being able to challenge the letters¡¯ placement in their official status files. This was because such a reminder could not be considered a neutral action, but rather a warning of any possible disregard of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that to the eyes of an average person, such a reminder is undeniably akin to a reprimand.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellants that there is no Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the decision-maker had not exercised his discretionary power properly, in that the Agency had unlawfully paid Ms. Jarallah an SPOA of 25 per cent instead of an SOA of 35 per cent which was stipulated in her contract of employment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that a valid and binding contract of employment existed between Ms. Jarallah and the Agency. An integral part of Ms. Jarallah's letter of appointment was the Job Description contained in the vacancy announcement with a reference to the 35...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Dahoud.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly found that the disability benefit paid to Mr. Dahoud in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.7(1) was different from the termination indemnity paid to certain staff members in accordance with Area Staff Rule 109.9.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that despite the Medical Board's conclusion that he had an 8 per cent permanent impairment, this does not necessarily lead to a finding of permanent and total disability, as required by Area Staff Rule 109.7(7), so as to receive the supplemental benefit. Nor does this medical...

The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error in the JAB¡¯s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant¡¯s failure to report to work and holding of...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ la demande de rectification du jugement de M. Zaqqout au motif que M. Zaqqout avait tent¨¦ de relancer son affaire au lieu de d¨¦montrer des erreurs de la nature de celles cens¨¦es ¨ºtre couvertes par l'article 11(2), et qu'il n'avait pas expliqu¨¦ les erreurs importantes retard dans la demande de correction des erreurs all¨¦gu¨¦es.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ la demande de r¨¦vision du jugement pr¨¦sent¨¦e par M. Zaqqout. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il s'agissait de la deuxi¨¨me demande de r¨¦vision d¨¦pos¨¦e par M. Zaqqout dans cette affaire, il lui ¨¦tait demand¨¦ de d¨¦montrer des circonstances...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

M. Hassan a fait appel du jugement du Tribunal.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas d¨¦montr¨¦ que le Tribunal avait commis une erreur en concluant que sa requ¨ºte n'¨¦tait pas recevable ratione personae. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a conclu qu'au moment de la d¨¦cision de non-s¨¦lection contest¨¦e, le requ¨¦rant avait cess¨¦ ses fonctions depuis plus d'un an et n'¨¦tait plus membre du personnel. Il s'agissait d'un candidat externe qui n'avait pas qualit¨¦ pour contester la d¨¦cision de ne pas le s¨¦lectionner pour le nouveau poste d'associ¨¦ ¨¤ la r¨¦installation, dans la mesure o¨´ la d¨¦cision n'affectait pas ses anciens...

Mr. Hassan appealed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵCTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

The motive for the...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

L¡¯Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a d¡¯abord r¨¦pondu ¨¤ la demande d¡¯audience du membre du personnel. Le fonctionnaire souhaitait pr¨¦senter au Tribunal des preuves m¨¦dicales prouvant son incapacit¨¦ m¨¦dicale. Le TANU a rejet¨¦ cet argument, soulignant que l'appel ¨¦tait une r¨¦vision du jugement du Tribunal du Tribunal sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s au Tribunal et que le fonctionnaire n'avait pas demand¨¦ ¨¤ pr¨¦senter de nouveaux ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve. L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a ¨¦galement rejet¨¦ les arguments selon lesquels le fonctionnaire pourrait profiter de l'audience pour expliquer diverses politiques ou pour proposer une...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT first addressed the staff member¡¯s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment based on the evidence presented to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT decided that mistakes in the way the summary dismissal decision was communicated to the appellant did not affect the fact that the real decision had ultimately been taken by the competent person in the Commissioner-General and not by any delegated authority.

It was undisputed that Mr. Mohammad was not afforded the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence produced against him after the re-opening of the investigation (two interviews of student B¡¯s mother and student B). However, neither in his appeal nor in his initial application to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did he point out any...

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a examin¨¦ un appel de Mme Mukomah.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ que l'affirmation de Mme Mukomah selon laquelle elle ¨¦tait l'¨¦pouse du d¨¦funt participant au moment de son d¨¦c¨¨s et avait donc droit, sur cette base, ¨¤ une prestation de veuvage en vertu de l'article 34 des statuts de la Caisse, n'¨¦tait pas fond¨¦e sur la base des ¨¦l¨¦ments de preuve pr¨¦sent¨¦s devant elle. l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

L'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a estim¨¦ qu'il n'y avait pas suffisamment de preuves prouvant que le d¨¦funt participant et Mme Mukomah avaient l¨¦galement conclu une (deuxi¨¨me) union l¨¦galement reconnue par l'autorit¨¦ comp¨¦tente du Kenya, conf¨¦rant des...

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Mukomah¡¯s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund¡¯s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Al Othman against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2020/073. It also considered a cross-appeal by the Commissioner-General of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA, to the extent that the Judgment awarded Mr. Al Othman compensation.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence established that Mr. Al Othman committed the alleged offences. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT conclusions were accurate, based on evidence on record and common knowledge and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no reason to differ from them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT shared the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s view that the only reasonable conclusion available to the trial Judge, resulting from the...

Ms. Larriera sought revision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a ¡°stable union¡± with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT observed that Ms. Larriera¡¯s application for revision was untimely. In addition, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

While it is...