爆料网AT held, noting that the Appellant relied on the 爆料网DT Rosca jurisprudence (judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/052) in her request for 爆料网DT to waive the time limits for management evaluation, that the plain language of Article 8. 3 of the 爆料网DT Statute could not be disregarded. 爆料网AT approved judgment No. 爆料网DT/2009/051 as the law on this issue and disapproved the interpretation of 爆料网DT in Rosca. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the services provided by OSLA and the way the representation is implemented can have an impact on a staff member’s terms of employment and can therefore fall within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT, without interfering with the professional independence of counsel. 爆料网AT held that the decision taken by the former Chief of OSLA not to disclose a potential conflict of interest in the staff member’s case could have an impact on his terms of employment and, therefore, constituted an administrative decision subject to review by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT reversed the 爆料网DT judgment and remanded the case to...
爆料网AT concurred with 爆料网DT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB’s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that 爆料网DT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...
爆料网AT held that there was no reason to disagree with the 爆料网DT judgment as the request for administrative review was clearly time-barred and the judgment did not contain any jurisdictional, factual or procedural defects. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered appeals of judgment Nos. 爆料网DT/2010/075 and 爆料网DT/2010/076. On the issue of being barred from the 爆料网OV premises, 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has jurisdiction over applications filed by a staff member, former staff member or a person making claims in the name of an incapacitated or deceased staff member. However, given that the Appellant was not a staff member at the time he was barred, 爆料网AT held that he could not complain that the decision was not in compliance with his terms of appointment or contract of employment. 爆料网AT held that, as a holder of an SSA contract, the Appellant was no...
爆料网AT held that since the Appellant did not submit her preliminary request for administrative review within the time limit, a time limit which expired before the new Staff Rules came into force, 爆料网DT had no alternative than to reject her application as not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网JSPB decision.
爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). 爆料网AT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. 爆料网AT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...
爆料网AT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, 爆料网DT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly held that the Appellant’s case was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that a selection process involved a series of steps or findings which led to the administrative decision, and that these steps may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of the selection process, but cannot alone be the subject of an appeal to the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s decision to order the Appellant to pay the sum of CHF 2,000, was justified because he filed a frivolous application and made all kinds of baseless charges against the fairness of the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT...
