Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052) in her request for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute could not be disregarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT approved judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in Rosca. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member¡¯s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member¡¯s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reversed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and remanded the case to...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT concurred with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB¡¯s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to disagree with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/075 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/076. On the issue of being barred from the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV premises, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has jurisdiction over applications filed by a staff member, former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. However, given that the Appellant was not a staff member at the time he was barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that he could not complain that the decision was not in compliance with his terms of appointment or contract of employment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as a holder of an SSA contract, the Appellant was no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPB decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that the Appellant¡¯s case was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT...