±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬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...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment was inconsistent in finding parts of the application irreceivable but not addressing what was to happen to the balance of the claim which was receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to the extent that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT held that some of the Appellant¡¯s claims were not receivable as they were not filed within time after management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in fact or law and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld such conclusions. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were errors by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in respect of which the appeal had to be allowed, which were: (1) the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT decision not to receive the application in respect of claims...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeals of two staff members who were not a party to the proceedings before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and had no standing. On the merits, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was a reviewable administrative decision within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred finding that the announcement by the USG/DGACM dated 8 April 2021 that the daily workload of translators would be increased to 5.8 pages and of self-revisers to 6.4 pages, was not an appealable administrative decision for the purpose of Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬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 dismissed the appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that 25 July 2017 was the relevant date triggering the time limit under Staff Rule 11.2(c). On that date, Ms. Wozniak was informed in unequivocal terms by the Administration that her request for deferment for the 2017 Rotation Exercise had been approved on retirement ground, on the understanding that she would retire on 30 April 2019. Thus, her request for management evaluation dated 24 July 2019 was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that in any case the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT also correctly held that even if it were to entertain that the...

±¬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...