爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not embarking on an oral hearing. Regarding the appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/060, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had failed to refer to the “Closure Note”, which apparently recorded the investigation and conclusions reached by OAIS during its preliminary review about the complaints against Mrs. X. 爆料网AT further held that 爆料网DT had failed to require disclosure of the written record of the investigation as offered by the Respondent. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in assessing the receivability only, when it should have judicially reviewed the decision of OAIS which was the body mandated under the 2013 爆料网FPA Policy to conduct such an assessment, particularly in circumstances where there was a written record capable of being disclosed to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that besides the procedural deficiency identified by 爆料网AT in relation to the failure of 爆料网DT to procure the written record of OAIS’ preliminary review of the Appellant’s complaint against Mrs X., none of the arguments put forward by the Appellant satisfied the requirements of Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT rejected to remove the anonymity which 爆料网DT saw fit to give the two staff members who were the subject of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/060. 爆料网AT further held that the appeal raised a myriad of other matters which did not have any bearing on judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/060. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal in part and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment insofar as it rejected the Appellant’s application relating to Mrs X. and remanded to 爆料网DT for reconsideration. 爆料网AT affirmed the remainder of the judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant filed an application to contest 爆料网FPA’s inaction on her complaints of misconduct against Mrs. X entailing harassment and undermining her, as well as against Mr. Y. The Applicant later filed a motion requesting 爆料网DT to hear the witness of Mrs. X. The Applicant reiterated the request in a new motion filed. By a new motion, the Applicant submitted a list of additional questions for Mrs. X to answer. In Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), 爆料网DT informed the parties that the case would be decided on papers, without further hearings or submissions. 爆料网DT rendered its judgment on the merits, finding that the Applicant’s challenge to the Office of Audit and Investigations Services’ (OAIS) decision vis-à-vis Mr Y. was not receivable since no complaint was ever received by OAIS with respect to Mr Y. and thus, no contestable administrative decision was taken in this regard. Regarding the merits of the Applicant’s challenge to OAIS’ decision vis-à-vis Mrs X., 爆料网DT found that her complaint with OAIS had been filed more than six months after the date of the last incident of harassment of which she complained, and thus did not respect the time limit set forth in section 9. 3. 1 of 爆料网FPA’s Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Abuse of Authority (2013 爆料网FPA Policy). 爆料网DT concluded that the Applicant’s complaints were not receivable by OAIS and that OAIS’ refusal to investigate these complaints did not breach any of the Applicant’s rights. Accordingly, 爆料网DT rejected the application. The Applicant filed an appeal against the 爆料网DT judgment and Order No. 133 (GVA/2015).
Legal Principle(s)
Pursuant to Article 16. 1 of the 爆料网DT RoP, it is for the judge hearing the case to decide whether an oral hearing is to be held. 爆料网AT has consistently afforded 爆料网DT wide discretion in matters of case management and 爆料网AT will not lightly interfere in such matters.