爆料网

Article 8.1(c)

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10(4)
  • Article 10(5)(a)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11(4)
  • Article 11(5)
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 3
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    2023-爆料网AT-1402, Faten Hatim Al Dawoud

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning for refusing an oral hearing because the staff member failed to establish that her appeal was receivable, was ex post facto and, thereby, erroneous.

    The 爆料网AT found that there was an error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s calculation of compensation in lieu of rescission of the non-selection decision as there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the 爆料网RWA would have found her unsuitable for the role at the end of the probationary period.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that the 爆料网RWA DT’s methodology of fixing...

    2022-爆料网AT-1299, Hiba Mohamad Abou Salah

    The Commissioner-General appealed.

    The 爆料网AT 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 爆料网AT found that Ms. Abou Salah’s subsequent correspondence, as well as correspondence written on her behalf...

    2022-爆料网AT-1235, Wissam Zeid

    Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...

    2014-爆料网AT-406, Chahrour

    On the issue of receivability, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网RWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

    2016-爆料网AT-611, Chaaban

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s finding...