Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Mr. Mousa appealed. As regards Mr. Mousa¡¯s request for an oral hearing, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he did not provide a compelling reason why an oral hearing should be granted in this appeal. As the case deals with the issue of receivability ratione materiae, an oral hearing is not necessary and would not ¡°assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡± within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Rules of Procedure. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also found that Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal did not refer to any of the grounds of appeal mentioned in Article 2(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The only submission regarding the relevant issue of receivability is his complaint that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not consider or rejected important evidence contained in certain annexes of his appeal. However, neither his submission nor the annexes of the appeal show any errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s Judgment. In addition, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had correctly found that pursuant to Area Staff Rule 111.2, a request for decision review against the contested decision must be submitted prior to filing an application to the Dispute Tribunal. On appeal, Mr. Mousa does not show that, contrary to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings, he fulfilled this requirement. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr. Mousa had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal nor had he sought leave to present such additional evidence as he was required to do in terms of Article 2(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. The evidence is not admissible on appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed Mr. Mousa¡¯s appeal and affirmed Judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2021/037.