爆料网AT considered Mr Al-Mulla’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-226. 爆料网AT noted that the application for revision was signed more than six months beyond the time limit. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-084 filed by the estate of Mr Sanwidi. 爆料网AT held that the estate of Mr Sandwidi did not present new evidence but merely expressed disagreement with the judgment. 爆料网AT denied the application for revision.
爆料网AT considered Mr Elguindi, Ms Onogi and Ms Sheryda’s separate appeals. With respect to Mr Elguindi’s claim, 爆料网AT did not find that the manner in which 爆料网JSPF apportioned his monthly pension sum to be unreasonable, capricious or an abuse of discretion. With respect to Ms Onogi’s claim of procedural defects, 爆料网AT was not persuaded that there were procedural flaws on the part of 爆料网JSPF such as to render the exercise of its discretion unreasonable or unlawful. 爆料网AT also did not find merit in Mr Elguindi’s claim of “double-dipping” in his opposition to Ms Onogi’s claim for relief from 爆料网JSPF...
爆料网AT noted that only circumstances beyond an applicant’s control that prevented them from timely exercising the right of appeal may be considered “exceptional circumstances,” justifying a waiver of the statutory time limit. 爆料网AT noted that an applicant’s initial mistaken belief that decisions were lawful cannot be deemed to constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to appeal those decisions, especially when they had every means of obtaining information from the Administration. 爆料网AT was not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments upon appeal and did not find any...
爆料网AT considered an appeal limited to the claim that 爆料网DT ordered inadequate compensation for the losses he sustained as a result of various acts and omissions on the part of the Administration. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT took due regard for the arguments the Appellant brought in his appeal and that 爆料网DT, having regarded the parameters of what it could compensate the Appellant for, made adequate provisions for the Appellant’s economic and social losses in its overall award to him. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT held that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision to suspend the execution of an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the general principle of the right to appeal and must, therefore, be narrowly interpreted; 爆料网AT held that the exception applied only to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of an administrative decision pending management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that no jurisdictional decision, which, as in matter before it, ordered the suspension of a contested administrative decision for a period beyond the date on which the management evaluation was...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the payment of interest awarded by 爆料网DT on the payment of Mr Ahmed’s accrued vacation days was undue, noting that any delay in the separation formalities was entirely attributable to him and, as such, he could not be compensated for the delay in payment. On the compensation in lieu of notice, 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT judgment and held that the matter was properly before 爆料网DT and could not be construed as res judicata. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Administration made a commitment to pay Mr Ahmed compensation in lieu of notice and...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to the matter of compensation. 爆料网AT held that the appeal had to be allowed in part because 爆料网DT erred in setting the compensation in lieu of reinstatement at two years’ net base salary without considering that Mr Gakumba’s previous fixed-term appointments were one year each. 爆料网AT held that the expectancy of renewal could not be fixed beyond such a period and therefore reduced the compensation to one year’s net base salary. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment on compensation for non-pecuniary damages and held that no error of law was...
爆料网AT held that, given the absolute restriction on its judicial discretion with respect to time limits, 爆料网DT ought not to have entered into a review of the possible existence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the complaint was filed beyond the time limit for administrative review or management evaluation and beyond the threshold for receivability established by the 爆料网DT’s Statute and Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT did not accept the argument that there was no evidence to indicate that the Appellant received the letter communicating the outcome of the management evaluation on 14 July 2011, noting that 爆料网DT relied on the Appellant’s statement to ascertain that date. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to show any error on 爆料网DT’s part. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General rightly submitted that the deadline for the Appellant to file an application with 爆料网DT was 12 October 2011, notwithstanding any ambiguity as to when she actually received the management evaluation response and the appeal failed on...
