±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøAT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal against ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT (by audio conference) as verified by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist ±¬ÁÏÍøAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not persuaded that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no reason to differ from ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s findings that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

Ar±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the inference drawn by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT judgment.

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT could not...

As a preliminary matter, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT admitted on appeal the...

In cases deemed suitable to be decided by summary judgment, usually an oral hearing is not necessary. In non-disciplinary cases, it is a matter of judicial discretion to hold an oral hearing or to abstain from it. The mandate of ±¬ÁÏÍøDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former ±¬ÁÏÍøAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending...