2011-爆料网AT-186, Oge
爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claims regarding the termination of his appointment and the procedures that resulted in the termination could not be received since 爆料网AT did not have jurisdiction to review a judgment of the former Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed no error in law by considering that the participation of the civil servant and his counsel in the hearing by video conference would not have violated the Appellant's rights of defence. 爆料网AT held that, although the letter dated November 8, 2005, contained a sentence that could imply that, if the JDC requested...