Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
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 request was entirely outside of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT mandate. 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 embarking on an oral hearing. Regarding the appeal against judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/061, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had failed to refer to the internal document ¡°Closure Note¡±, which apparently recorded the investigation and conclusions reached by OAIS during its preliminary review about the complaints against Mrs C. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the conclusions reached by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had a proper legal basis in the absence of the aforesaid documentary record. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected to remove the anonymity which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT saw fit to give Ms C. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the appeal raised a myriad of other matters which did not have any bearing on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment, No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2015/061. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for reconsideration.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s inaction on her complaints of misconduct against Mrs C. By way of order No. 133 (GVA/2015), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT informed the parties that the case would be decided on papers, without further hearings or submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rendered its judgment on merits, finding that the Applicant¡¯s complaint of 22 August 2014 to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OAIS) was sent almost seven months after she had transferred teams, such that she no longer worked with Ms C., and more than 11 months after she had been placed on Special Leave with Full Pay (SLWFP). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that her complaint with OAIS was filed more than six months after the date of the last incident of harassment of which she complained, and thus did not respect the time limit set out in section 9. 3. 1 of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Abuse of Authority (2013 Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Policy). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the application. The Applicant filed an appeal against the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and order No. 133 (GVA/2015). The Applicant later filed a motion to request Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to extend her rights as a staff member or to admit that they were extended by the Executive Director, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. The Applicant further filed a motion requesting Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, should it reject her case, to ¡°at least remove the immunity from the involved staff members¡±, so that she may bring her discrimination and harassment complaints against the concerned staff members in the Danish courts.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has consistently afforded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT wide discretion in matters of case management and will not lightly interfere in such matters.