爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
爆料网AT considered whether 爆料网RWA DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant failed to reference the grounds of appeal he relied upon, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, because the Appellant did not identify the defects or grounds that rendered the impugned decision erroneous, the appeal must fail for this reason alone. In considering the rest of the appeal, 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his allowance request had been refused since 2009. Moreover, 爆料网AT applied the Rosana test insofar as silence from the Agency in response to a request ordinarily constitutes a negative reply, resulting in an implied administrative decision. 爆料网AT further held that the Appellant’s claim that he did not receive the letter dated 29 June 2014 was not receivable. 爆料网AT noted that it was not raised before the 爆料网RWA DT and thus could not be introduced for the first time on appeal. Moreover, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s contention that the decision on his request for decision review is challengeable before the internal justice system, as the Appellant failed to comply with the time limits set forth in relevant 爆料网RWA provisions, especially Area Staff Rule 111. 2. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the Agency’s decision not to pay him the parallel education allowance. 爆料网RWA DT found that since the Applicant had failed to comply with the time limit set forth in Area Staff Rule 111. 2, and as it did not have jurisdiction to waive the deadline for decision review, the application was not receivable. 爆料网RWA DT also found that the DUO/J’s decision from 1 June 2017 was not an appealable administrative decision because it was the response to the Applicant’s request for decision review from 4 May 2017 and, as such, not subject to judicial review in accordance with established 爆料网AT jurisprudence. 爆料网RWA DT dismissed the application in its entirety.
Legal Principle(s)
The reiteration of an original administrative decision, if repeatedly questioned by a staff member, does not reset the clock with respect to statutory timelines; rather, time starts to run from the date on which the original decision was made. The request for management evaluation or decision review provides the Administration with the opportunity to reassess the situation and correct possible mistakes or errors with efficiency and the tribunals have no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for requests for management evaluation or decision review.