爆料网

Article 3.1

  • Article 1.2
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 13
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18bis
  • Article 18bis.1
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 20
  • Article 20.2
  • Article 22
  • Article 23
  • Article 24
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(a)
  • Article 29(b)
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 3 of 3
    2018-爆料网AT-877, Atome

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that neither the 爆料网AT Statute nor the 爆料网AT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. 爆料网AT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

    2018-爆料网AT-863, Afawubo

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. 爆料网AT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. 爆料网AT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which notes that...

    2020-爆料网AT-994, Rodriguez

    爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, 爆料网AT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, 爆料网AT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...