±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the repeated requests by the Appellant to the management over a period of seven years for a correction of his entry-level were mere restatements of the original claim and did not stop the deadline for contesting the decision from running. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not have the power to waive or suspend the deadline for requesting administrative review under the old internal justice system (Costa (2010-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-036)). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law in applying the decision in Rosca (±¬ÁÏÍøDT/2009/052), which was disproved by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in Costa, but that the error did not affect the outcome...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, even though it found the case non-receivable, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT undertook a final review of the Appellant¡¯s allegations and that the case failed on the facts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that the decisions contested in the application, namely that the matters contested did not constitute administrative decisions and therefore her application was not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no basis to disagree with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was open to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held there was no error in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no dispute that the Appellant had a fixed-term appointment, which had no expectancy of renewal or of conversion to any other type of appointment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed most of the allegations brought by the Appellant since he had failed to raise them in a request for administrative review or management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the investigation into the management and administrative practices in general or of disciplinary cases is usually a matter within the discretion of the Administration but may still be subject to judicial review. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that if a staff member is dissatisfied with the outcome of an administrative decision, they may request judicial review which may result in the affirmation or recission of the decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding the application not receivable, as the Appellant challenged an administrative decision, claiming non-compliance with the terms of his...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT in Costa. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute, as interpreted by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in Costa and affirmed by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant failed to explain how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT recalled that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute precluded ±¬ÁÏÍøDT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that when the new system was created, ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was not given powers to hear a matter already finally decided by the former Administrative Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT accordingly held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was correct in finding that it did not have the power to review the decision of the former Administrative Tribunal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the Appellant exhausted her avenues of appeal and that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to hear another appeal. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT concurred with ±¬ÁÏÍøDT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT and raised it for the first time before ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration¡¯s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with ±¬ÁÏÍøMIK. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...