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. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the 爆料网AT mandate. 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 against judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/061, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had failed to refer to the internal document “Closure Note”, which apparently recorded the investigation and conclusions reached by OAIS during its preliminary review about the complaints against Mrs C. 爆料网AT was not satisfied that the conclusions reached by 爆料网DT had a proper legal basis in the absence of the aforesaid documentary record. 爆料网AT rejected to remove the anonymity which 爆料网DT saw fit to give Ms C. 爆料网AT further held that the appeal raised a myriad of other matters which did not have any bearing on 爆料网DT judgment, No. 爆料网DT/2015/061. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for reconsideration.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested 爆料网FPA’s inaction on her complaints of misconduct against Mrs C. By way of 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 merits, finding that the Applicant’s complaint of 22 August 2014 to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OAIS) was sent almost seven months after she had transferred teams, such that she no longer worked with Ms C., and more than 11 months after she had been placed on Special Leave with Full Pay (SLWFP). 爆料网DT found that her complaint with OAIS was 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 out 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 dismissed the application. The Applicant filed an appeal against the 爆料网DT judgment and order No. 133 (GVA/2015). The Applicant later filed a motion to request 爆料网AT to extend her rights as a staff member or to admit that they were extended by the Executive Director, 爆料网FPA. The Applicant further filed a motion requesting 爆料网AT, should it reject her case, to “at least remove the immunity from the involved staff members”, so that she may bring her discrimination and harassment complaints against the concerned staff members in the Danish courts.
Legal Principle(s)
爆料网AT has consistently afforded 爆料网DT wide discretion in matters of case management and will not lightly interfere in such matters.