爆料网AT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. 爆料网AT held that, regardless of whether 爆料网DT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute precluded an appeal to 爆料网AT if 爆料网DT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Order.
爆料网AT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, 爆料网AT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...
This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the 爆料网DT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the 爆料网AT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the 爆料网DT has: (a) exceeded its...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the 爆料网DT’s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. 爆料网AT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the 爆料网DT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the 爆料网DT Judgment, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...
爆料网AT held 爆料网DT erred in law with regard to its finding that the second decision to renew the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment superseded the first decision to renew his appointment (the challenged decision). Nevertheless, 爆料网AT held that this finding was not dispositive of the appeal in the Appellant’s favour, as his application was not receivable on the grounds of another basis of mootness. 爆料网AT held that the contested decision to renew his fixed-term appointment by three months instead of two years did not constitute an appealable administrative decision for the simple reason that the...
On the request for the oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether 爆料网DT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, 爆料网AT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) 爆料网DT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the question of whether 爆料网DT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that 爆料网DT erred in fact or in law about this issue. 爆料网AT held, however, that 爆料网DT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr D R-B, given that the selected...
As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT declined Mr. Hossain’s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain’s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. 爆料网AT admitted on appeal the...
爆料网AT held the staff member’s appeal of the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the 爆料网DT was erroneous. Additionally, 爆料网AT also held that it found no error in the practice of the 爆料网DT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...
爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT finding that it lacked jurisdiction in respect of the staff member’s application to review the determination of the Second Alternate Chair. 爆料网AT noted that the subject matter jurisdiction of 爆料网DT is limited to the review of administrative decisions. The determinations of the Second Alternate Chair do not constitute administrative decisions, and as such, any application to review them before the 爆料网DT is not receivable. 爆料网AT highlighted that ST/SGB/2017/2/Rev.1 confers on the Ethics Office only the power to recommend, advise and refer, and Section 10.3 of ST/SGB/2017/2/...
