Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administration Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did...

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 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 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 record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael¡¯s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Michael¡¯s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline¡¯s marriage to Michael invalid. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF correctly applied the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s right to due process of law was not violated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. 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...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err when it decided that the present appeal by a former staff member to have access to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵOV premises was not among the listed grounds of jurisdiction of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and was therefore not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.