Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the content of the Appellant¡¯s appeal, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment, and the Appellant¡¯s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that the Administration¡¯s decision not to confirm the Appellant¡¯s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination were not supported by evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that, as there was no illegality, there could be no compensation for harm under Article 9(1)(b) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also dismissed the Appellant¡¯s request for costs because the Commissioner-General had not abused the proceedings. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to confirm his appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT rejected the Applicant¡¯s claim that the Agency did not give him any advice or guidance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT found no merit in the Applicant¡¯s claim that reports indicated that he had made significant progress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT also rejected the Applicant¡¯s contention that he had been assigned tasks that were not part of his job description. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT further concluded that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of harassment and discrimination were not supported by the evidence and dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
A party appealing a judgment of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT is unlikely to succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified, or the case remanded to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT unless the appeal challenges the impugned judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2(1)(a) to (e) of the Statute.