爆料网

Article 11.1

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 52
    2022-爆料网AT-1191, Abdalla Abdalla

    Mr. Abdalla filed an application for revision and interpretation of Judgment No. 2021-爆料网AT-1078, claiming that the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal had a suspensive effect on the ongoing proceedings in the 爆料网DT, that therefore the extended time limit to file an application would not have elapsed, and thus his ultimate application should be received; and that once 爆料网AT had dismissed the Secretary-General's appeal, it should have remanded the case for further adjudication. 爆料网AT found that Mr. Abdalla had failed to point to any statement or consideration in the 爆料网AT Judgment which would...

    2022-爆料网AT-1255, Boubacar Dieng

    The Secretary-General sought interpretation, revision, and execution of Judgment No. 2021-爆料网AT-1118, on grounds that he was unable to effectuate the compensation awarded in the 爆料网DT Judgment because Mr. Dieng refused to provide his banking details. 爆料网AT held that the Judgment was clear, written in plain and unambiguous language, and it left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant. Thus, there was no need for clarification. 爆料网AT further found that the Secretary-General had failed to argue that he had discovered a decisive fact which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal at the time the Judgment...

    2022-爆料网AT-1224, Howard Andrew Giles

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-爆料网AT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, 爆料网AT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles’ were unknown to the 爆料网AT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. 爆料网AT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2022-爆料网AT-1211, Alaa Skheileh

    The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and 爆料网AT were unaware of various 爆料网RWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. 爆料网AT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, 爆料网AT also reasoned prior 爆料网RWA DT judgments do not...

    2022-爆料网AT-1190, Emma Reilly

    Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. 爆料网AT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. 爆料网AT dismissed the application. 爆料网AT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, 爆料网AT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. 爆料网AT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

    2011-爆料网AT-163, Masri

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-098. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT for vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. 爆料网AT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

    2011-爆料网AT-127, Luvai

    爆料网AT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-014 by Mr Luvai. 爆料网AT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before 爆料网DT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then 爆料网DT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. 爆料网AT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. 爆料网AT denied the application.

    2011-爆料网AT-102, Muthuswami et al.

    The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-爆料网AT-034. 爆料网AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.