Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

As regards the request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had lawfully exercised its discretion and given a reasonable explanation for not holding an oral hearing. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA 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 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT and upheld...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment finding that the Contested Decision was never implemented. Noting that the issue of mootness was raised for the first time on appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT explained (paras. 32-33): ¡°It is ordinarily impermissible to raise a new point on appeal that is not covered by the pleadings or was not canvassed in the evidence before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, unless the point is jurisdictional in nature. A question of jurisdiction may always be advanced on appeal for the first time. The reason for the jurisdictional exception is obvious. The principle of legality prohibits the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from assuming a...

On the issue of receivability, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant¡¯s application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors of fact or law by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in awarding costs against the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not provide evidence with sufficient particularity of any specific instances in which he had requested compensation for overtime, or the Administration had denied such a request. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that absent any identifiable administrative decision the application was not receivable ratione materiae was correct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument that his overtime work without compensation over the years was in violation of the Administration¡¯s responsibility to establish a normal working week for its employees and was thus a continuous...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member¡¯s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in the...

Scope of application: It is an essential and inherent part of the duties of a Judge to clarify, interpret and comprehend what the claim is to identify what is in fact being contested. Time limits (receivability ratione materiae): Time limits do not begin to run anew simply because and when an Applicant is provided with a reasonable belief that there are grounds to request management evaluation of a decision that was notified at an earlier stage. Administrative decision (receivability ratione materiae): In case of post abolition, the decision to (re)advertise the post is not an administrative...