爆料网

Appeal

  • Appeal
  • Interlocutory appeal
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • 爆料网JSPB
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 72
    2022-爆料网AT-1247, Rania Mohammed Dajani

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. 爆料网AT held that to allow the Appellant’s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

    2022-爆料网AT-1228, Sarah Coleman

    Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the 爆料网DT Judgment asking that 爆料网AT reverse the 爆料网DT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman’s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. 爆料网AT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

    2010-爆料网AT-055, Hijaz

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decision on an Appellant’s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that 爆料网DT’s decision on the Appellant’s request of extension could not be appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-051, Ilic

    爆料网AT preliminarily held that the appeal was receivable, noting that the situation was quite exceptional and a necessity to consider the disposition of facts. 爆料网AT rejected the request for discovery of evidence and an oral hearing, holding that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the exercise of its discretion in granting such requests. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the minutes of the recourse session held by the Appointments, Postings and Promotions Board clearly showed that the experience and achievements of the Appellant were properly considered at the 2007 Promotion Session...

    2010-爆料网AT-048, Sefraoui

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the 爆料网DT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which 爆料网DT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General’s submissions on the basis of “minimal showing” that the Applicant had been fairly considered. 爆料网AT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the 爆料网AT Statute...

    2010-爆料网AT-047, Attandi

    爆料网AT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/038. 爆料网AT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. 爆料网AT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by 爆料网DT. Regarding judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/038, 爆料网AT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

    2010-爆料网AT-046, Vangelova

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how 爆料网DT had erred on questions of...

    2010-爆料网AT-045, Tsoneva

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.