Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Gharemani¡¯s request for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-171. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, following a style of cross-reference to other documents that made it mostly incomprehensible and indirectly violated the page limitation for such an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason why Mr Gharemani could not have filed his petition for revision within 30 days of the discovery of the facts as provided for in Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request was time-barred...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Elasoud¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-173. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT were not aware when his appeal was considered. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the grounds for appeal were not substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged delay in the disposal of the case at the lower level did not have any impact on the outcome of the case and was partially tolerated by the Appellant. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s reasonable decision to accept the opinions of the attending doctor at the hospital and the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵIFIL Chief Medical Officer concerning the approximate time of Mr McKay¡¯s death being some hours prior to Mr McKay arriving at the hospital. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was correct to conclude, as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did, that, regardless of any deficiency...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law and exceeded its competence by awarding compensation for distress without a previous claim for damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Debebe¡¯s claim before the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had been limited to material or pecuniary damages related solely to remuneration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for moral damage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment to the extent that it awarded compensation for moral damages.

As a preliminary issue, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not follow the proper procedure when it allowed the Respondent to participate in the proceedings without a formal request for waiver of time limit for filing its answer and taking part in the trial. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that another significant irregularity took place during the proceedings before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, in light of which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was compelled to annul the judgment and remand the case for a de novo consideration by a different Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judge, namely that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT committed an error in procedure when it denied the Appellant¡¯s request for a copy of the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/034 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the finding of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Perelli was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was a procedural error to allow the Commissioner-General to participate in the proceedings and to file a late reply without a written order, but that the Appellant was not prejudiced by that error and the error did not violate his due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s failure to object to the Respondent¡¯s late reply before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not prevent him from raising on appeal the question of procedural error. On the Appellant¡¯s claim that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred when it did not permit him to file a rejoinder to the Respondent¡¯s reply, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that since the Appellant did...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no nexus between the emotional distress of preparing for the exam and the impugned decision as the preparation took place prior to the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the contradictory information received by Ms Mirkovic and the lack of responses from the Chief of the Examinations and Tests Section added to her stress and injury was not supported by the facts, noting that written confirmation of what the Chief had told her was not required in order for her to request management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163 (judgment on application for revision). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for...

On the issue of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision not to take up the Appellant¡¯s motion for disclosure of documents, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate how this affected his rights or would have had a relevant impact on the evidence already collected, the basic facts of which were not contested, and therefore Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there were no procedural grounds to vacate the judgment. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not established any error of fact or law that warranted reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that not every violation of due process led to an award of compensation...