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 61 - 70 of 72
    2020-爆料网AT-1022, El Shanti

    爆料网AT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, 爆料网AT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that 爆料网RWA...

    2020-爆料网AT-1012, Heftberger

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...

    2020-爆料网AT-1039, Lynn

    爆料网AT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1038, Rixen

    爆料网AT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and WMO dated 20 January 2020. 爆料网AT...

    2020-爆料网AT-1034, El Sehemawi

    爆料网AT held that AJAB’s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute or the Agreement between the 爆料网 and ICAO. 爆料网AT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. 爆料网AT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

    2020-爆料网AT-983, Webster

    爆料网AT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, 爆料网AT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the 爆料网AT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, 爆料网AT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. 爆料网AT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute, specifying that the Appellant’s appeal should be reconsidered and...

    2021-爆料网AT-1170, Matthew Lee

    This case was presided by Judge Halfeld, and Judge Murphy drafted the majority opinion. The Majority (Halfeld, Murphy, Raikos and Knierim) dismissed the appeal and held that the appeal was not receivable. Without deciding on the issue whether the 爆料网DT has an inherent right to hold a non-party in contempt, the Majority found that the appeal did not meet the requirements of the 爆料网AT Statute. The Majority explained that it had jurisdiction ratione materiae to hear and pass judgment on an appeal pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Statute in which it is asserted that the 爆料网DT has: (a) exceeded its...

    2021-爆料网AT-1150, Andrea Barbato

    爆料网AT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the 爆料网AT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

    2021-爆料网AT-1139, Jihad AbduGhani Oneis, Diab El-Tabari and Walid Abdullah

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by 爆料网RWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant’s rights. However, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT’s Judgment dismissing the Appellant’s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.

    2021-爆料网AT-1122, Yasmina Laasri

    爆料网AT first noted that neither party disagreed with the 爆料网DT Judgment that the contested decision was unlawful. Regarding the Secretary-General’s appeal that an award in moral damages was not warranted, 爆料网AT disagreed with the Administration and found that the 爆料网DT was correct when it considered the medical certificate dated in March 2020, which gave a history of the staff member’s health in 2015 (a year before the contested decision). 爆料网AT found it credible that the staff member suffered from a pattern of harassment, which began before the time of the contested decision (June 2016). As such, a...