±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.

±¬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 found that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not addressed the Appellants¡¯ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants¡¯ due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

±¬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 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.