±¬ÁÏÍø

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and considered his grounds of appeal. With respect to the claimed errors of procedure, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no merit in the Appellant¡¯s arguments. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was not persuaded that the Appellant suffered prejudice by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT admitting the Commissioner-General¡¯s late reply, failing to translate the reply into Arabic, failing to lift the confidentiality order, or by failing to hold an oral hearing. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the Appellant had an unhealthy working relationship with...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal, which alleged that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in finding that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Administration¡¯s decision not to inform Mr Hamayel that his post would not be held for him during his second year of Special Leave Without Pay (SLWOP) was arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby vitiating the decision to transfer Mr Hamayel, and by awarding moral damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that it was both logical and reasonable to expect the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Administration to inform Mr Hamayel that taking a second year of SLWOP would cause him to lose his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, even though Mr Hamayel had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT 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 ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to be non-receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that, even if it were to disregard the untimely submission of the application before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA 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. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that he argued the same arguments that he put before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant¡¯s arguments and weighed them against the facts of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no fault with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision and held that the Appellant did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in fact or law. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Commissioner-General¡¯s appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that due process required both parties to be given an opportunity to present their case, and not allowing them to do so resulted in a miscarriage of justice. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exclusion of the Commissioner-General from participating in the proceedings was a clear violation of due process such as to affect the decision of the case, which must result in the judgment being annulled and the cases remanded for a hearing de novo before a different Judge. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted it was, thus, not necessary to consider the other grounds of...

±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals by both the staff member and the Commissioner-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact was undisputed that the staff member knowingly presented non-existent credentials despite questioning the ethics of accepting the document with his qualifications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that termination was not disproportionate to the offence, taking into account that the staff member¡¯s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which never would have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA...

On appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court¡¯s evaluation of the Applicant...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issue to be determined was clear from the papers filed in the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, other than repeating his arguments before the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, the Appellant had not detailed the alleged instances which, according to him, resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claims of errors of fact on the part of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, were unsustainable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err when it found, from the contents of the 2 September 2009 communication to the Appellant...

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