±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2025/001.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat¡¯s appeal was not receivable.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s broad case?management discretion.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the issues on appeal were whether the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in refusing to grant anonymity to the staff member in proceedings challenging a written reprimand, whether it misapplied the jurisprudence governing anonymization, and whether such an error justified interlocutory review. It recalled that interlocutory appeals are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, including where an error is irremediable by a final judgment and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the impugned order to remain in effect.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed an error of law by...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language. As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable. In this regard, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT first rejected his contention...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was timely, as Article 11(5) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Statute provides that the filing period begins upon receipt of the Arabic translation of the judgment when the application was originally submitted in Arabic. Since Ms. Al Dawoud received the Arabic version on 9 January 2025 and filed her appeal on 10 March 2025, the appeal was timely.

On the merits, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly identified the Agency¡¯s error in treating an email shared by Ms. Al Dawoud as confidential and acknowledged the harm caused by the erroneous disciplinary measure. However, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly determined that the former staff member¡¯s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on ±¬ÁÏÍøAMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in dismissing both applications as not receivable. Regarding the first application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Settlement Agreement encompassed all disciplinary sanctions imposed on 9 December 2022, including the deferment of eligibility for salary increment. Therefore, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was wrong to conclude that the deferment was outside the scope of the Agreement and that the Agreement had been fully implemented. The application for enforcement was properly receivable.

As to the second application, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Administration¡¯s interpretation of the Settlement...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in that same language.As he received the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was filed timely.

Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member¡¯s application before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not receivable ratione temporis.The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the former staff member...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the former staff member¡¯s application was not receivable because most of the contested decisions were either time-barred, res judicata, or did not constitute appealable administrative decisions. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) correctly determined that the claim for compensation under Appendix D remained time-barred under Article 2.1(b) and that the requirements for waiver under Article 2.1(e) were not met, as there was no evidence of incapacity preventing timely filing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that...