±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err when it decided that the present appeal by a former staff member to have access to the ±¬ÁÏÍøOV premises was not among the listed grounds of jurisdiction of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and was therefore not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-154. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither ±¬ÁÏÍøDT nor ±¬ÁÏÍøAT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims¡¯ case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied the application.