±¬ÁÏÍø

The logical consequence of rescinding the contested administrative decision would be to remand the case to DHMOSH for a new consideration in light of the Tribunal¡¯s findings in the present case. As the basic legal premise for the contested administrative decision was flawed, the Tribunal find that this would be the most appropriate remedy in the present case (in line herewith, see the Appeals Tribunal in Gueben et al. 2016-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-692, para. 48). In this regard, the Tribunal notes that it has no jurisdiction as to directing the work of a potential medical board or the ABCC. The Tribunal finds...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgments: it identified the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not issued a judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT has the power to, as it did, refer a matter to the Secretary-General for investigation under Article 10(8) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and held that all language in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment was obiter dictum or surplusage, except for the order itself, which ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed in its entirety.

Accountability Referral: The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT referral for possible action to enforce accountability.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the contentions against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/004 were not receivable since only appeals against judgments on merits are receivable. Regarding the contentions against judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2011/080, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no need to produce further documents. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly applied Article 10. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute in ordering compensation in lieu and that the Appellant had no right to request ±¬ÁÏÍøAT to order his reinstatement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the non-renewal was based on a tainted performance evaluation and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, therefore, ordered the rescission of the...