±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT committed a substantial error in procedure in not granting due process of law to the Administration. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Secretary-General¡¯s argument about the suspension of the deadline for submission of a Reply, on which he relied, was substantiated. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should not have issued a default ¡°Summary judgment¡± on the merits of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT upheld the appeal and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment. The case was remanded to another ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judge to be tried on its merits after both parties have had the opportunity to make...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Appellant of judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2015/003. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in any way when it dismissed her application finding it to be moot, an outcome which was a natural consequence of the administrative rescission of the impugned decision, circumstances that contemplated the staff member¡¯s claim and rights, solving the previous irregularity. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s request to amend her application to seek compensation for material and moral damages was filed after she had received notification of the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the Appellant¡¯s claim that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and do...

The Appellant did not raise any challenges as to the merits of the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment, but rather his appeal related to the procedure adopted by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT in hearing his complaint. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction in the exercise of its power, such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Noting that two Orders clarified the aim of the hearing, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no prejudice caused to the Appellant by the failure to provide him with a description of the relevance of the witnesses¡¯ testimony. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA/DT/2014/027. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT judgment and affirmed ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s reasoning. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request to submit new evidence to ±¬ÁÏÍøAT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was for ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT to consider that it...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the Appellant¡¯s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General¡¯s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant¡¯s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the findings of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the previous judgment with the Appellant¡¯s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by the staff member. On the confidentiality issue, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no merit in the staff member¡¯s claim that some findings of the impugned judgment had not been shared with her. Regarding the delay in the response to the request for management evaluation, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate how the alleged delay of response on the part of the Administration had prejudiced her or had violated her due process rights. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member had failed to demonstrate any error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found no error in ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT summary judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings/evidence, finding there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal on the suspension without pay was not receivable since the Appellant had failed to observe the time limits. Regarding the receivability of the letter requesting reconsideration of the summary dismissal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it would not admit evidence that had been known to the...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered the appeal, specifically whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred by dismissing the staff members¡¯ motions to adduce supplemental evidence on the grounds of receivability, and whether ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred by finding that the final contested decision was taken on 3 August 2014. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Abu Malluh et al. acted with due diligence in the proceedings before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT and further demonstrated that the supplemental evidence they sought to have admitted would have led to different findings of fact and changed the outcome of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT has broad discretion to determine the...