爆料网

爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules

  • 111.2(3)
  • 111.2(3)b
  • Appendix to the Staff Rules 1-D/E effective 2015 (Salary Scale Gaza and West Bank)
  • Former Rule 106.1(16)
  • Former Rule 111.3
  • Former Rule 111.3(2)
  • Former Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 103.3
  • Rule 103.5
  • Rule 103.8.1
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 106.1(16)(D)(ii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(7)
  • Rule 106.2(9)
  • Rule 106.3
  • Rule 106.3.1
  • Rule 106.4
  • Rule 106.4(8)
  • Rule 107.9
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.2
  • Rule 109.2(5)
  • Rule 109.2(7)
  • Rule 109.4
  • Rule 109.4(2)
  • Rule 109.4(3)
  • Rule 109.5
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(7)
  • Rule 109.9(3)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(1)
  • Rule 111.3
  • Rule 111.3(4)
  • Rule 111.4
  • Rule 112.3(D)
  • Rule 113.1
  • 爆料网RWA Staff Rule 111.2(5)
    • Showing 21 - 30 of 91
    2022-爆料网AT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

    2023-爆料网AT-1327, Husein Taha Abu Heija

    The 爆料网AT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member’s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

    Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The 爆料网RWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the 爆料网RWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

    2023-爆料网AT-1322, Ronahi Majdalawi

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-爆料网AT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, 爆料网AT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

    2022-爆料网AT-1286, Raed Mousa

    Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa’s request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case” within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT’s Rules of Procedure. The 爆料网AT also found that Mr. Mousa’s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1246, Ashraf Ismail abed allah Zaqqout

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, 爆料网AT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout’s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout’s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the 爆料网RWA’s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

    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...

    2022-爆料网AT-1247, Rania Mohammed Dajani

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. 爆料网AT held that to allow the Appellant’s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

    2022-爆料网AT-1244, Reem Khaled Matahen

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. 爆料网AT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen’s written request for an extension of time to file an application, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by 爆料网RWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

    2022-爆料网AT-1243, Mohammed Faour

    爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA DT’s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the 爆料网RWA DT focused on Mr. Faour’s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). 爆料网AT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by 爆料网AT judgments: it identified the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1211, Alaa Skheileh

    The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and 爆料网AT were unaware of various 爆料网RWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. 爆料网AT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, 爆料网AT also reasoned prior 爆料网RWA DT judgments do not...