爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT had before it an appeal against both Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) and Summary judgment No. 爆料网DT/2014/061. On the Appellant’s additional filings and motions to submit additional pleadings, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted the inclusion of any of the additional material in the appeal and denied the motions. On the Appellant’s motion requesting 爆料网AT to intervene in matters which fell outside the scope of the appeal, 爆料网AT denied the motion. On the Appellant’s appeal of Order No. 63 (GVA/2014), 爆料网AT rejected the appeal on the basis that her appeal grounds did not approach the requisite threshold for 爆料网AT to interfere with the case management of 爆料网DT and she did not advance any persuasive argument that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or erred in matters of law or procedure or manifestly in fact in relation to the Order. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly found that the non-selection decisions for two posts were receivable. On the Appellant’s challenge to the performance rebuttal process, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s rejection of this complaint as premature, noting that processes must be allowed to run their proper course before being challenged before the 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT. Noting the numerous motions the Appellant had brought regarding matters were outside the scope of the appeal, 爆料网AT opined that the Appellant’s actions verged on an abuse of the appeal process. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had not challenged the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Rebuttal Policy was not an administrative decision. On the issue of blocking emails and access to 爆料网 City, 爆料网AT held that, having regard to the overall context of the present case, such issues could not be summarily determined solely as a question of law without 爆料网DT embarking upon an assessment of the factual matrix which gave rise to the impugned decision and accordingly, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred procedurally, such as to affect the decision in the cases. 爆料网AT held that none of the other arguments put forward by the Appellant satisfied the requirements of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the appeal succeeded in part. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s complaints regarding the two blocking decisions and remanded those issues to 爆料网DT for de novo consideration.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested: the blocking of her emails; the blocking of her access to the complex of 爆料网 City; her non-selection for two posts; the 爆料网FPA’s failure to conduct or follow-up on her performance rebuttal process; and the performance rebuttal policy itself. By Order No. 63 (GVA/2014) 爆料网DT invited the Secretary-General to respond to a motion filed by the Applicant requesting leave to provide additional evidence and comment on the Secretary-General’s reply to the 爆料网DT application. In judgment No. 爆料网DT/2014/061, 爆料网DT, limiting itself to receivability issues, found in favour of the Applicant in part, i. e. that her challenges to her non-selection for the two posts in Procurement Services Branch were receivable and dismissed the remainder of her application.
Legal Principle(s)
Processes must be allowed to run their proper course before being challenged before 爆料网DT or 爆料网AT.