Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was unable to show any illegality of fact, procedure or law in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment which might have compelled it to decide in his favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that to report to work on time, regularly, and without break is a basic duty of anyone who is employed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was given a fair hearing before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and the reasons for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissing his appeal were valid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s contract was validly taken and called for no interference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-036)). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052), which was disproved by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on an Appellant¡¯s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on the Appellant¡¯s request of extension could not be appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

The Secretary-General appealed, asserting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering suspension of the decision not to renew Mr Onana¡¯s appointment until it determined the substantive application on its merits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must therefore be narrowly interpreted; this exception only applies to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending a management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that Ms Frechon was incapable of further service, based on the findings of the Medical Board, was not tantamount to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT having stepped into the shoes of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Medical Director. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no grounds to disagree with the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that Ms Frechon¡¯s contract was, in fact, terminated for medical reasons. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the procedure which should have been invoked was that set out in ST/AI/1999/16. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in rescinding the decision to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consider the appeal receivable and find that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat¡¯s appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rescinded...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing as the submissions by the parties did not require clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT questioned whether her case presented exceptional circumstances that would warrant the reopening of her case by the Secretary-General, as her application was not filed in a timely manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the appeal was not receivable as, notwithstanding her illness, she did not demonstrate such circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on questions of fact by ignoring or failing to examine what the Appellant considered to be evidence, which constituted mere allegations and unsubstantiated argumentation on his part. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not support his submission by any grounds which would bring the issue within the remit of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Noting that the Appellant relied upon the statements and observations which he had brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that a litigant¡¯s past allegations and arguments cannot be considered evidence per se. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not the task of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT)...