Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not address any error of fact or law in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the irregularities in the procedure did not amount to a breach of the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was irrelevant whether the Appellant filed his application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in the interests of justice or seeking an award of moral damages since there was no evidence of damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s motion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant¡¯s failure to file his application within the established time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that failing...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT under Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute by not asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...