±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT inferred that the Appellant claimed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the legal conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeals. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not find merit in the Appellant¡¯s claims that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on questions of law and procedure by finding that the security situation and safety of staff was considered by the Administration based on the United Nations regulations concerning the safety of its staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Administration¡¯s decision to assess and terminate their service resulted from a valid exercise of the discretionary power of the Administration and was not tainted by improper...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal of both ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT decisions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave full consideration to the Appellant¡¯s claim that the transfer was a disguised disciplinary measure following allegations of her corporal punishment of students. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there was evidence that, prior to her transfer, the Chief, Field Education Programme had dismissed these allegations as unsubstantiated and it was not until almost two months after the transfer that the Jordan Field Office authorised an investigation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT therefore correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

On the decision to postpone the separation on medical grounds, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that a staff member had a right to be compensated for a service-incurred injury. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in determining the decision to postpone the Appellant¡¯s separation on medical grounds until the end of the disciplinary process was lawful. Noting that the Appellant did not provide any evidence in support of his claim of psychological suffering (or harm), ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not award moral compensation. On the issue of the SLWOP, given the nature and seriousness of the allegations against the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT finding that the application was not receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contention that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in that it examined the timeliness of his application sua sponte, without it having been raised by the Respondent, holding that the competence of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to review the observance of the statutory deadlines for filing an application can be exercised even if the parties or the administrative authorities do not raise the issue because it constitutes a matter of law and the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute prevents ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT from receiving a case which...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ¡± To that end, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the Agency correctly decided not to transfer the Appellant to the post in question. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issue of whether the Agency has an obligation to contact all staff members who made a transfer request is not receivable because it was not raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s complaint required factual findings in order to ascertain whether the claim was meritorious, and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make such findings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal, vacated ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2018/026, and remanded the issue of whether the Administration fulfilled...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal, requesting that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment be vacated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and upheld its findings that the Agency was entitled, under the provisions of paragraph 2 of FTI 01/2016, to fill the concerned post by means of a lateral transfer of current staff members. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with, and upheld, the ruling that it was not within the remit of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to pronounce on the exercise of the Agency¡¯s discretion in deciding on the lateral transfers unless there is evidence that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or unlawfully. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there...