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 51 - 60 of 91
    2015-爆料网AT-542, Nielsen

    爆料网AT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. 爆料网DT/2014/061. On the Appellant’s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant’s motion requesting 爆料网AT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, 爆料网AT denied the motion. On the Appellant’s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), 爆料网AT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did...

    2015-爆料网AT-504, Hassan

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before 爆料网RWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that 爆料网RWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网RWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2015-爆料网AT-502, Khashan

    爆料网AT held that, in protesting against the non-inclusion of his Transitional Personal Allowance in his retirement benefit, the Appellant had failed to appreciate the distinction between an allowance and base salary. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that under the applicable Staff Rules, the Appellant’s retirement benefit did not include the Transitional Personal Allowance. 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had not submitted a timely request for decision review with respect to his allegation of impropriety of his transfer and that therefore that claim was...

    2015-爆料网AT-495, Diab

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not indicate any errors on the part of 爆料网RWA DT that would require a reversal of its judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in 爆料网RWA DT’s finding. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not comply with the filing deadlines. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit any error when it determined that the application before it was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2016-爆料网AT-688, Haimour and Al Mohammad

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeals. 爆料网AT did not find merit in the Appellant’s claims that 爆料网RWA 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. 爆料网AT held that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any errors in 爆料网RWA 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...

    2016-爆料网AT-687, Mohanna

    爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing prior to consideration of the appeal. 爆料网AT also rejected the Appellant's claim that 爆料网RWA DT was biased in ordering that the five applications be consolidated into a single judgment. With respect to the appeal itself, 爆料网AT held that the appeal of the decisions denying disability benefits and finding the non-payment of termination claim not receivable, had no legal basis. Regarding the Appellant’s challenge to the Commissioner-General’s decision to render the findings of the medical board moot and not to pay him a disability benefit...

    2016-爆料网AT-665, Hamdan

    爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT erred on a question of law and fact and whether its decision to dismiss the Appellant’s application was flawed by procedural irregularities. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the apparent error of fact in the judgment and the basis for contending that an error was made, merely repeating arguments that did not succeed before 爆料网RWA DT. The Appellant’s decision to sign the contract was binding on him as there was no evidence of duress. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-634, Jaber et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants had failed to present any evidence showing that they had suffered mental distress during the investigation, and such evidence was necessary for an award of moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网RWA DT had erred in not awarding them compensation for the lengthy administrative delay during the investigation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-627, El Rush

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the 爆料网RWA DT’s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former 爆料网WRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant’s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. 爆料网AT agreed with the...

    2016-爆料网AT-617, Saeed

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...