爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, 爆料网AT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested a second decision that his position would not be extended past him reaching the age of retirement. 爆料网RWA DT held that the Agency was justified in refusing the Applicant’s second request for an extension beyond his retirement age because his post was already advertised long before his second request. 爆料网RWA DT held that the Applicant failed to offer evidence that he was subject to discrimination and noted that such discrimination could only exist if he was treated differently from individuals in the same circumstance. 爆料网RWA DT further held that the Applicant’s argument that Jordanian law permits staff to remain in service until age seventy was without legal merit, as the Agency is not bound by the laws of member states but is governed by its internal laws and regulations. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application.
Legal Principle(s)
A party appealing a judgment of a first instance tribunal (the 爆料网DT or 爆料网RWA DT) will not succeed in having the judgment reversed, modified, or the case remanded unless the appeal challenges the impugned judgment on one or more of the grounds referred to in Article 2(1)(a) to (e) of the Statute.