±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no errors in the decision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the Appellant¡¯s application was irreceivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held the Appellant was notified of the decision not to shortlist him by e-mail of 14 November 2019. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s allegations regarding the abolishment of his post had no legal relevance for the appeal, which dealt only with issues of receivability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT acknowledged that the imposed disciplinary measure of separation from service without termination indemnity is one of the most severe disciplinary measures that the Agency can impose on a staff member. Nevertheless, it decided that, given the Appellant¡¯s misconduct in committing corporal punishment to a disabled and highly vulnerable child, and the Agency¡¯s clear zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment, the disciplinary measure imposed on the Appellant appeared to be neither absurd nor arbitrary; nor was there any evidence that the measure taken had been tainted by...

It was a reasonable exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion to determine that intentionally abusing a position of power and trust against a beneficiary of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA in a vulnerable situation rendered Mr. Al Khatib unfit for further service with the Agency, and separation from service without termination indemnity was neither unfair nor disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1055. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application was dismissed.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mousa. On matters of procedure, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the additional documentary evidence presented on appeal was inadmissible as Mr. Mousa had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and had failed to seek leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that that while Mr. Mousa had been disciplined for working while on sick leave from the Organization and without valid authorization, he on appeal again focused on the allegations of malpractice which had...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal explained that on 21 March 2019, it had become clear to the staff member that the Agency had not shortlisted her for these two posts. This information was confirmed on 21 March 2019 by HR to the staff member. The Tribunal also noted that there were nothing in the communications between the parties indicating that the matter would be reopened or reconsidered. Furthermore, the subsequent email from HR on 8 April 2019 detailing the reasons why she was not selected was not a new administrative decision but rather a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant¡¯s rights. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s Judgment dismissing the Appellant¡¯s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment.