±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT addressed the staff member¡¯s appeal seeking reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment with compensation for the actual and moral damage, as well as the reinstatement of her appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s letter of appointment was clear and unambiguous that the appointment did not carry an expectation of renewal or conversion to any other type of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct in finding that the Agency¡¯s extension of the Appellant¡¯s...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to have all appeal-related documents removed from her ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA official service file. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding no irregularity in the decision-making process under judicial review and consequently dismissing the application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had to persuade it that there were flaws in the contested administrative decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment, the proceedings that led to it, or in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s judgment, which would warrant vacating the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not raised new arguments...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the established facts showed that the Appellant¡¯s negligence as Head Storekeeper facilitated the misconduct of other staff members and his negligence was evidenced by the excess of merchandise in the storeroom under his control, and by his failure to keep an inventory of the items in his custody. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant neither successfully rebutted these facts, nor demonstrated any flaws in the administrative and disciplinary procedures. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the sanction of demotion was lawful. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal and found that the decision to terminate his service, effective from close of business 15 December 2007, and as communicated to him on 30 November 2007, was superseded by the action he took on 4 December 2007, an action reinforced by him on 7 January 2008. Under these circumstances, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA did not err in dismissing Mr Al Sayyed¡¯s appeal against his termination on the basis that there was no termination decision capable of review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr El Khatib¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-142. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Mr Maghari¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-039. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT and to the party applying for revision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, as the Appellant¡¯s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT decision that the application was not receivable as consistent with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Area Staff Rule 111. 2 and Article 8 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute. On alleged errors in procedure, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had no opportunity to challenge the untimeliness of the Commissioner-General¡¯s reply before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, but that, since the Appellant had not demonstrated how the untimely reply affected ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision on receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit on this ground. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s reasoning on the issue of EVR. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, absent an appealable...

On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled the jurisprudence of the former ±¬ÁÏÍø Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...