Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not suspend or waive the time limit to file an appeal more than three years after the applicant¡¯s receipt of the contested administrative decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or in fact in its assessment that the issue before it was the amount of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s approach in considering the Appellant¡¯s prospects of success was entirely reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not the function of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to take on the substantive role with which the interview panel was charged and to find that the Appellant was the only qualified candidate. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the jurisdiction vested in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is to review alleged procedural deficiencies and to rectify any which are...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT order denying revision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a change in law is not a ¡°fact¡± contemplated by Article 12. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the issuance of new jurisprudence by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is an issue of law, not of fact.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly determined that the issue before it was the failure of the Administration to address the Appellant¡¯s formal complaint. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no error of law or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT with regard to the Appellant¡¯s request for an investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was satisfied that the award by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT of USD 40,000 constituted sufficient satisfaction for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly refused to entertain the request for compensation for economic loss because the Appellant¡¯s separation from service was not the subject of...
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 and dismissed the application.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/052 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2009/062. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the appeal to the Joint Appeals Board was not filed within the time limits and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to waive them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was not receivable ratione temporis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgments.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that when a disciplinary sanction is imposed by the Administration, the role of the Tribunal is to examine whether the facts, on which the sanction is based, have been established, whether the established facts qualify as misconduct, and whether the sanction is proportionate to the offence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that in this case, the facts were so clear as to be irrefutable; no matter what the standard, the Administration met its burden of proof. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the parties freely made an agreement, the Appellant received benefits under it and then she sought additional benefits on the basis that she had not received proper notice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found, the Appellant received notice of her termination date when she signed the MOU, some four months prior. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that a formal letter was received later neither abrogated the MOU nor gave rise to any further compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly determined that the Appellant was not entitled to compensation in lieu...
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that access to the new system of administration of justice can be extended to persons who are not formally staff members but who can legitimately be entitled to rights similar to those of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this exception must be understood in a restrictive sense. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that interns have no access to the new system of administration of justice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.
