爆料网

Article 2.1

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10(4)
  • Article 10(5)(a)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11(4)
  • Article 11(5)
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 3
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2023-爆料网AT-1322, Ronahi Majdalawi

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment lawfully and appropriately.

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT erred when it decided that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT noted that the case was almost identical to Osama Abed & Eman Abedv. Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (Judgment No. 2022-爆料网AT-1297). Consistent with this Judgment, 爆料网AT held that the placement of a letter reminding the Appellant of her obligation to behave at all times in a manner...

    2022-爆料网AT-1244, Reem Khaled Matahen

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. 爆料网AT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen’s written request for an extension of time to file an application, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by 爆料网RWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

    2015-爆料网AT-504, Hassan

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant raised the same issues he raised before 爆料网RWA DT and did not identify how the judgment was in any way defective. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify any of the required grounds of appeal and failed to demonstrate that 爆料网RWA DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s case was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网RWA DT and found no error of law or fact in its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    爆料网DT/2011/194, Achkar

    From the pleadings of the Applicant, it is clear that at the time of the contested decision he was a staff member of 爆料网RWA. This entity does not fall under the jurisdiction of the 爆料网DT. At the time the cause of action arose, the Applicant would probably have been entitled to pursue any claim he might have had against 爆料网RWA before the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal. Since the cause of action arose in 爆料网RWA, the element of ratione materiae of the 爆料网DT is not satisfied because the Applicant should have filed his application against the Commissioner General as the Chief Executive Officer of...