±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB¡¯s recommendation not to accept the Appellant¡¯s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant¡¯s services were unsatisfactory. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari¡¯s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that (1) the Commissioner-General has broad discretionary authority in disciplinary matters; (2) the facts on which the Appellant¡¯s termination was based were established; (3) the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct; and (4) there was no substantive or procedural irregularity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant¡¯s termination was legal and not disproportionate to the offenses. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA decision.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

In considering the appeal brought forth by the Appellant, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT preliminarily held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA JAB erred in finding that the appeal was not receivable due to late filing; ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was evident the JAB appeal was filed on time. With regard to the substance of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was within ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s power and discretion to refuse the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement since it had already filled his position. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA¡¯s position that there was no error in refusing the Appellant¡¯s reinstatement and dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-026bis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the language of the judgment was clear in its meaning and required no interpretation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the application.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for ¡°reconsideration¡± of Judgment No. 2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-029bis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib¡¯s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application for ¡°reconsideration¡± constituted an abuse of the appeals...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the claim was time-barred. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant was asked to present updated medical information to support her request for a review of her case and failed to do so. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that no prejudice existed against the Appellant, since she had an opportunity to present updated medical evidence within the scope of the review of her case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Standing Committee decision.