爆料网AT considered Ms Roig’s application for correction and noted that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. 爆料网AT noted that the correction procedure is not an opportunity for a party to reargue their case or to merely repeat arguments that did not previously succeed. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for correction.
爆料网AT considered Ms Dzuverovic’s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by 爆料网DT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic’s 爆料网DT application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal and not to redact the 爆料网DT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. 爆料网AT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...
爆料网AT considered Mrs Sidell’s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, 爆料网AT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, 爆料网AT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. 爆料网AT denied both Applications.
爆料网AT considered Mr Wang’s appeal, specifically as to whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the selected candidate, Ms C. Y., fulfilled the requirements for the post and whether 爆料网DT correctly concluded that Mr Wang was accorded full and fair consideration in the selection process for the post. 爆料网AT was satisfied that the evidence before 爆料网DT supported the Administration’s decision to select Ms C. Y. for the post. 爆料网AT found that there was sufficient evidence that Ms C. Y. had the requisite word count translation requirement and that the Administration gave her proportionate credit for her...
爆料网AT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, 爆料网AT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, 爆料网AT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...
爆料网AT considered two appeals by the staff member of 爆料网DT Order Nos. 109 and 110. 爆料网AT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before 爆料网DT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, 爆料网AT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. 爆料网AT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. 爆料网AT held that there was no statutory...
On appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. 爆料网AT further held that 爆料网RWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court’s evaluation of the Applicant...
爆料网AT had before it an application for correction of judgment and an application for interpretation of judgment for judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-499, both submitted by Mr Fedorchenko. 爆料网AT held that Mr Fedorchenko’s applications did not come within the criteria set forth in the relevant statutory provisions. On the application for correction, 爆料网AT held that Mr Fedorchenko did not cite any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify a correction of judgment and failed to identify any meaning or scope of the judgment to justify interpretation or identify which sentences or words were unclear or...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s analysis of the receivability of the application was replete with factual and legal errors. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had made an error of fact and law when it tolled the limitations period for seeking management evaluation for the period 23 June to 23 August 2011. 爆料网AT held that tolling the limitations period for the two or three days of the Ombudsman’s assistance, which took place after the limitations period had expired, did not assist the staff member. 爆料网AT held that there was no legal authority for 爆料网DT to commence the...
As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT found that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant the granting of the Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply to the Commissioner-General’s answer and denied the motion. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA’s findings that the application was not receivable ratione temporis because it was filed more than three years after the receipt of the termination decision and that 爆料网RWA DT had no discretion to waive the regulatory time limit of three years, were unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the application was not receivable ratione...
