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 41 - 50 of 91
    2013-爆料网AT-331, Faraj

    爆料网AT held that, given the written instructions provided to the Appellant, it was completely understandable that he proceeded to request again the review of the contested decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it found that he ought not to have done so and could not claim to have been legitimately misled as to the appeals procedure. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA’s holding that the Appellant should have known the applicable legal framework and filed his appeal on time was unsustainable. 爆料网AT noted that the Commissioner-General did not dispute the Appellant’s claim that the 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rules...

    2013-爆料网AT-304, Al Surkhi et al.

    爆料网AT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that 爆料网RWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网RWA DT’s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT...

    2014-爆料网AT-452, Audeh

    爆料网AT found that the Appellant and her counsel were provided with an adequate opportunity to file an application in a timely manner, but failed to do so, causing her application before 爆料网RWA DT to be non-receivable. 爆料网AT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before 爆料网RWA DT, the application would remain non-receivable because the Appellant did not seek in a timely manner the required request for review of the contested administrative decision she intended to overturn. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2014-爆料网AT-432, Azzouz

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网RWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before 爆料网RWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. 爆料网AT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2014-爆料网AT-431, Mousa

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the 爆料网RWA DT judgment under appeal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate 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...

    2015-爆料网AT-596, Musleh

    爆料网AT noted that, despite its Registry’s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the conclusion of 爆料网RWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and 爆料网RWA’s regulatory...

    2015-爆料网AT-564, El-Shobaky

    爆料网AT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. 爆料网AT held that the text of 爆料网RWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. 爆料网AT held that, contrary to the Appellant’s submissions, 爆料网RWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of 爆料网RWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA found that the Appellant’s evidence...

    2015-爆料网AT-548, Khaleel

    爆料网AT held that it was satisfied that the rejection of the application as not receivable was correct on the basis that the Appellant did not seek decision review within the mandatory time period, which meant that 爆料网RWA DT was precluded in law from considering the merits of his application. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify how the 爆料网RWA DT judgment was in any way defective or demonstrated that 爆料网RWA DT erred in relation to its jurisdiction or committed an error of fact or law or procedure such as would warrant intervention by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT...

    2015-爆料网AT-543, Abu Ayyash

    爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT decision that the Appellant did not challenge a discretionary administrative decision that breached the terms of his appointment, rather, he was challenging the rule providing for the manner in which separation benefits should be calculated, including the applicable interest rate. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not challenge an appealable administrative decision in that he did not contest a unilateral decision taken by the administration in a precise individual case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly held that the publication of interest...