爆料网

爆料网RWA

Showing 111 - 120 of 274
2013-爆料网AT-363, Chaaban

爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the application was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept 爆料网RWA’s late reply in circumstances where 爆料网RWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering 爆料网RWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration’s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. 爆料网AT held...

2013-爆料网AT-340, Dannan

爆料网AT held that the appeal was not based on any of the required grounds. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT properly discharged its duty to examine whether the procedure laid down in the applicable Staff Regulations and Rules had been followed and whether the Appellant had been given fair and adequate consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly placed upon the Appellant the onus of showing by clear and convincing evidence that he had been denied a fair chance of being promoted. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT’s observation that it was not enough for the Appellant to merely allege favouritism and yet...

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-326, Jibara

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Jibara. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT lacked jurisdiction to decide on the scope of the Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinian National Authority or the legality of the detention and imprisonment. 爆料网AT recalled that it was not the role of 爆料网DT to substitute its own decision for that of the Administration. 爆料网AT recalled that, having established misconduct and the seriousness of the incident, 爆料网AT cannot review the level of a sanction imposed except in cases of obvious absurdity or flagrant arbitrariness. 爆料网AT...

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...

2013-爆料网AT-296, Rabee

爆料网AT held, without examining the merits, that a staff member cannot create a platform to re-open the possibilities of challenging an administrative decision not impugned at the time it was issued for reasons that did not exist at that time. 爆料网AT held that the reconsideration sought by the Appellant was based on the analysis of administrative decisions that had no direct or particular effects on him, but on other staff members. On the allegation that a second decision was taken at a later date, 爆料网AT held that it was nothing more than a consequence of the earlier decision, which had already been...

2013-爆料网AT-292, Abu Jarbou

爆料网AT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s failure to object to the Respondent’s late reply before 爆料网RWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent’s reply, 爆料网AT held that since the Appellant did...

2013-爆料网AT-289, Wishah

As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. 爆料网AT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before 爆料网RWA DT, in light of which 爆料网AT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different 爆料网RWA DT Judge, namely that 爆料网RWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant’s request for a copy of the...