±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former ±¬ÁÏÍøWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant¡¯s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence showed that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 ¡°did not refer to any new fact or information¡± and was ¡°a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014¡±. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the 60-day time limit for an Appellant to request management evaluation from the contested decision began to run from the date of notification of the administrative decision and expired on 18 August 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT pointed out that the Appellant submitted his request for management evaluation six months after the time limit had expired. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further clarification. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not base his appeal on any grounds for appeal in accordance with those established in the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s conclusions about the untimely submission for review of the purported administrative decision approving a new workflow, the non-receivability of the challenge against the directive to the staff of the Finance Department not to take instructions from the Appellant, as well as the intermediate nature of the decision to refer...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that despite acknowledging that under ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment in its entirety.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that failing...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly dismissed the Appellant¡¯s claims in relation to the non-renewal of his appointment and his reassignment as not receivable as they were time-barred. On the cancellation of his administrative leave, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that there was no adverse decision affecting his conditions of employment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to terminate the administrative leave and not to pursue disciplinary action was not an administrative decision in that it did not have any adverse legal consequences or impact for the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the decision to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the requirements for ±¬ÁÏÍøAT jurisdiction were fulfilled. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...