爆料网

爆料网RWA

Showing 261 - 270 of 274
2021-爆料网AT-1136, Abdulhamid Al Fararjeh

爆料网AT held that the facts upon which 爆料网RWA based its decision were established, in full respect of his due process rights. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant committed sexual exploitation and abuse against a beneficiary of 爆料网RWA; neither did it err in concluding that the disciplinary sanction was proportionate and lawful. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant, by having the complainant remove her pants and underwear and engaging in a such a sensitive and specific medical examination, which he did not have the required competencies and...

2021-爆料网AT-1134, Anis Basil AlMousa

爆料网AT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however 爆料网AT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General’s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because 爆料网AT did not detect any error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

2021-爆料网AT-1116, Ashraf Ismail Abed allah Zaqqout

The impugned 爆料网RWA DT Order clearly comes within its competence to issue appropriate case management orders. It did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing Order No. 123, and Mr. Zaqqout is not prevented from attacking the interlocutory order later if he appeals the final judgment of the 爆料网RWA DT on the merits.

2021-爆料网AT-1131, Mohammed Sirhan

The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the 爆料网RWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...

2021-爆料网AT-1096, Emile Abdel Rahman Dabbour

爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law or in failing to take into account in that calculation the probable length of Mr Dabbour’s tenure in that role which was known to have been of a fixed duration of three years. 爆料网AT held that, although the 爆料网RWA DT in Mr Dabbour’s case had recorded its conclusions on some of these considerations, it did not do so at all in respect of others making it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain objectively how it reached the apparently modest figure of compensation in lieu of recission of USD 1,000. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing to indicate why 爆料网RWA DT did...

2021-爆料网AT-1086, Loubani

爆料网AT disagreed with 爆料网RWA DT and found the supervisor’s request to the Agency to grant the staff member a special allowance also constituted an implicit request from the staff member himself. 爆料网AT reasoned that not only did the supervisor act upon the express request of the staff member when he sent the recommendation to the Agency, but it was also apparent and self-understood that both the staff member and the supervisor were a party to the process. Additionally, in this particular case, it is the staff member who followed up with the Agency regarding the status of the supervisor’s request...

2021-爆料网AT-1085, Abu Skheileh

爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Agency is estopped from revisiting the determination of whether the injury was service-related, given that the Agency had made several representations to the staff member over a period of time, and which the staff member had relied upon. However, 爆料网AT disagreed that granting reimbursement for medical expenses in Syria would automatically mean that the Agency would also pay for such expenses in Germany. Pursuant to Area Staff Rule 106.4(3), the staff member needed prior authorization before he could be reimbursed for the costs of medical treatment in hospitals...