Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

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 noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no basis to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was open to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT in Costa. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute, as interpreted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in Costa and affirmed by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute precluded Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that when the new system was created, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and raised it for the first time before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...