Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Unat a examin¨¦ les deux appels de M. Attandi, contre l'ordonnance n ¡ã 02 (NBI / 2010) et le jugement n ¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT / 2010/038. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'ordonnance n ¡ã 02 (NBI / 2010) ¨¦tait une directive pour l'appelant et non un jugement contre lequel un appel pouvait ¨ºtre d¨¦pos¨¦. Unat a jug¨¦ qu'un appel contre l'ordonnance n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir parce qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un jugement d¨¦finitif rendu par Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. En ce qui concerne le jugement n ¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT / 2010/038, Unat a soutenu que bien que l'appel soit certainement ¨¤ recevoir car l'affaire de l'appelant avait ¨¦t¨¦ retir¨¦e, il n'y avait aucun m¨¦rite dans...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT consid¨¦r¨¦ le jugement n ¡ã Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT / 2009/052 et Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT / 2009/062. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appel ¨¤ la Commission des appels conjoints n'avait pas ¨¦t¨¦ d¨¦pos¨¦ dans les d¨¦lais et que Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT n'avait pas comp¨¦tence pour les renoncer. Unat a jug¨¦ que la demande avant undt n'¨¦tait pas ¨¤ recevoir ratione tempis. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a rejet¨¦ l'appel et annul¨¦ les jugements Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.

Unat a soutenu que l'appelant n'avait pas montr¨¦ comment Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵT a d¨¦pass¨¦ sa juridiction ou sa comp¨¦tence ou n'a pas exerc¨¦ sa juridiction. Unat a jug¨¦ que l'appelant n'avait pas identifi¨¦ d'erreur sur une question de droit. Unat a soutenu qu'il n'avait aucune raison de ne pas ¨ºtre d'accord avec la d¨¦tention de l'Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT qu'aucun pr¨¦judice institutionnel, ni repr¨¦sailles, n'a jou¨¦ un r?le dans le non-renouvellement du contrat de l'appelant. Unat a not¨¦ que la d¨¦cision de retirer le portefeuille de l'appelant avait ¨¦t¨¦ prise avant d'avoir fait un rapport d'actes r¨¦pr¨¦hensibles. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT a not¨¦ que la non...

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 held that the Appellant had failed to show how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had no reason to disagree with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant¡¯s contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the decision to take the Appellant¡¯s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant¡¯s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Regarding judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2010/038, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...