±¬ÁÏÍø

Mr. Jibril appealed.

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that in view of the case record, the contested administrative decision was the decision not to reclassify the staff member¡¯s post, which was communicated to Appellant in a definitive and unambiguous response on 9 July 2019.

Subsequent letters to the Appellant were only reiterations of that decision. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT was correct to conclude that Appellant failed to submit a timely request for decision review as required prior to filing his application with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, given that Mr. Abu Heija had not filed his request for decision review until more than a year after receiving the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and upheld...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Zaqqout. As regards an oral hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that since the application was dismissed on grounds of receivability, Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s arguments were not persuasive enough so as to justify an oral hearing at this stage. Some of the issues raised in the appeal were connected to the merits of Mr. Zaqqout¡¯s application and did not meet the threshold of the receivability assessment. Since Mr. Zaqqout was made aware at the very early stage of the proceedings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s allegation that he had been notified of the impugned decision on 30 December 2018, he should have...

Mr. Zeid appealed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed Mr. Zeid's request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties; and that an oral hearing would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that there was no evidence of a request for decision review, that the e-mail exchanges whereby Mr. Zeid had made inquiries regarding the reasons for the contested decision were not a request for decision review, but rather were informal attempts to...