±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to allow the Appellant¡¯s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen¡¯s written request for an extension of time to file an application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour¡¯s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgments: it identified the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Ms. Al Smadi. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in its finding that a letter Ms. Al Smadi received to her reclassification request on 17 August 2017 was an administrative decision. The only interpretation of this letter was that it was not a decision that had any legal effect or consequences on Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s terms and conditions of appointment. It was simply a notification that Ms. Al Smadi¡¯s reclassification request was still being reviewed but that the review had not been ¡°finalized¡± or decided upon as of that date. The letter she received on 29 July 2019 was, on...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. Regarding the deduction of a sum of money from his separation benefits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that this claim was not first submitted for decision review. Regarding his separation from service without termination indemnity, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the bank statement did not contain the correct amount and that the invoices he submitted did not relate to genuine purchases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was satisfied that: (i) the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based had been established by clear and convincing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal against the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had not issued a judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT were unaware of various ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also reasoned prior ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgments do not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accepted ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT made fundamental errors of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the legal framework did not establish an automatic right of the staff member to the extension of his or her service beyond the age of retirement upon the submission of the pertinent application, even if she or he satisfied those two conditions. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, contrary to ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s finding, the Administration has the discretion to deny a request to extend a staff member¡¯s service beyond retirement only in exceptional cases and on account of the interests of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA, which must be reflected clearly and precisely in the reasoning for the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant¡¯s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel¡¯s return or replacement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and...