±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit to the staff member¡¯s motion to strike from the record the Secretary-General¡¯s response to a ±¬ÁÏÍøAT order requesting information. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in its determination that the available information established on a balance of probabilities that the staff member had engaged in the alleged misconduct justifying his placement on ALWOP. The video clip, circulated on social media and elsewhere, the equivocal concession (later to become an unequivocal admission) to being the person in the vehicle and the identification evidence alone...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier ±¬ÁÏÍøAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute. The only submission regarding the...

Mr. Younis appealed. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that after perusing the PHP submitted by Mr. Younis, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had held that the suitability review was correct. The PHP confirmed the Administration¡¯s assessment of Mr. Younis¡¯ work experience. The total number of years of his experience for the two criteria had been properly arrived at by first determining if the nature of his work experience fulfilled the relevant criteria and then the number of years for which he had served in relevant roles was computed for both criteria. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that even if Mr. Younis was given the benefit of the doubt on the...

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT correctly determined that the comprehensive documentary evidence before it was sufficient to render a decision without the need for an oral hearing, especially as the issue was one of receivability. Further, the appellants have not shown how the denial of the request to hold an oral hearing affected the Judgment. With respect to the issue of receivability, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and upheld...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied AAB's request for an oral hearing on grounds that there was no need for further clarification since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties, and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed AAB's claim that her right to a fair trial before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had been violated because, since the application was found not to be receivable, and she was denied the opportunity to file a rejoinder. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that there is no...

±¬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 ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT allowed the appeal, set aside the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT concurred with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and raised it for the first time before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.