±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish any error in fact or law which would warrant the reversal of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment under appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly characterized the contested administrative decision subject to its judicial review as a demotion and subsequent transfer, which was taken after disciplinary proceedings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not erred when, after conducting an adequate review of the requirements for the adoption of a disciplinary measure, it concluded that there had been misconduct and that the sanction was legal and proportionate to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact committed by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 2. 1 of the Special Agreement between the United Nations and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA and that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

On the issue of receivability, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in summarily addressing sua sponte the issue of the receivability of the application when the Commissioner-General did not raise that issue in his reply. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s request for review of the contested decision was filed almost a year after he knew of the implied decision and was, therefore, untimely. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s contentions against the participation of the Commissioner-General in the proceedings and to file a...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant¡¯s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General¡¯s answer and denied the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was disingenuous for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the allegations of irregularity raised by the Appellant were supported by evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was hard to comprehend how the Appellant¡¯s post suddenly became redundant when at the same time around 75 per cent of its functions were to be transferred to a consultant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that even though the new organisational structure was not approved until September 2013, as early as June 2013, the abolition of the Appellant¡¯s post had already been decided and was communicated to him by his supervisor, against whom the Appellant filed a complaint of abuse of power. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Appellant of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2015/003. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in any way when it dismissed her application finding it to be moot, an outcome which was a natural consequence of the administrative rescission of the impugned decision, circumstances that contemplated the staff member¡¯s claim and rights, solving the previous irregularity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request to amend her application to seek compensation for material and moral damages was filed after she had received notification of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, despite its Registry¡¯s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error in the conclusion of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant¡¯s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s regulatory...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered appeals of both judgment Nos. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/026 (judgment on the merits) and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/051 (judgment on revision). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the judgment on the merits was filed out of time and was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the judgment on revision failed to identify a ground of appeal, expressed disagreement, and repeated arguments already considered and rejected by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact upon which the Appellant had based his revision application did...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in hearing his complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...