2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1061, Abu Osba
As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT as required under Art 2(1) ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s exercise...
2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1047, Orabi
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2019/070 by the Commissioner-General of ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT did not commit any error when it concluded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had failed to consider the Applicant¡¯s personal and humanitarian reasons in the impugned decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly concluded that relevant matters (personal and humanitarian reasons) had been ignored in the exercise of the Commissioner-General¡¯s discretion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment.
2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1048, Ross
The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General¡¯s Office (IGO) of ±¬ÁÏÍøHCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager¡¯s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...
2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1057, Nsengiyumva
On the Appellant¡¯s claim that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judge was biased, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s specific allegations were not made out and any missteps in the conduct of the hearing did not warrant interference with the result. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that his supervisor harassed him to the extent that his actions were mitigated substantially, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if the Appellant established that there was a dysfunctional relationship between him and his supervisor, this could not have had the effect of mitigating his actions significantly, such were the scale and duration of his misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...
2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1058, Nadeau
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.
2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1059, Bezziccheri
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered Ms Bezziccheri¡¯s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT can be revised, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...
2020-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1046, Ashhab
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, although no performance evaluation process was legally required for termination, an appropriate procedure should have been followed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA failed to indicate that the contract would be terminated before its expiration date if the staff member did not improve his performance, and the lack of fair warning rendered the decision to terminate unlawfully. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal in part, rescinded the termination decision, and ordered reinstatement, with an in-lieu compensation of two months¡¯ net base salary.
2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1077, Icha
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, regarding the question of whether ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held, however, that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...
2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1075, Nadeau
±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in assessing the evidence presented. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in its finding that i) it would seem that the Appellant¡¯s situation with his former FRO had actually been resolved since they no longer worked together; ii) the Appellant¡¯s eventual temporary reassignment would appear to have been a very reasonable further solution to bring him out of an office environment in which he obviously continued to feel uncomfortable, and iii) it would fall within the Administration¡¯s discretion whether to enact any of the three measures proposed by the Appellant. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...
2021-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1076, Haidar
±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the request for an oral hearing. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that the measure of...