±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member did not fulfil the requirements for revision of the prior ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Judgment. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that no new fact was advanced by the staff member that had been unknown either to him or the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT at the time of the prior Judgment, nor one that would have been decisive in reaching the decision had it been known. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was of the view that his application for revision amounted to a restatement of the material already placed before the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, which had been considered and rejected, and constituted an attempt to have the appeal, which had been disposed of, re-heard de...

The Tribunal cannot review the merits of the Applicant¡¯s allegations of harassment or abuse of authority. Its jurisdiction is limited to the review of whether her resignation was caused by an action or inaction of Administration which was in violation of the applicable legal framework. The Applicant¡¯s resignation was not caused by an action or inaction of the Administration but was her unilateral decision. Accordingly, this aspect of the application does not concern an administrative decision capable of judicial review and is not receivable. ; Given that the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s...