爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网RWA DT had committed errors in law or fact in reaching its decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim that he was denied legal representation was not made before 爆料网RWA DT, although it was a circumstance that was known to the Appellant at that time. 爆料网AT held that it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
爆料网RWA DT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision that denied transferring him to the then-vacant post of Clinic’s Clerk at the Medical Department in the Al Elins area in Damascus. 爆料网RWA DT issued Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2013/013 rejecting the application as not receivable ratione materiae on the ground that the Applicant had failed to request decision review pursuant to Area Staff Rule 111.2 (1)(A) and that 爆料网RWA DT had no jurisdiction to waive this requirement. 爆料网RWA DT found that, in any event, the application was rendered moot since the Applicant was separated in response to his request for early voluntary retirement which superseded the Commissioner-General’s decision to terminate his service.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case. A party cannot merely repeat on appeal arguments that did not succeed in the lower court. Rather, he or she must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT.