爆料网

Article 7.1

  • 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 1 - 10 of 14
    2024-爆料网AT-1483, Jane Ocokoru

    Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The 爆料网AT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

    The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the 爆料网DT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

    2010-爆料网AT-090, Umpleby

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was filed after the deadline for filing appeals had passed and therefore the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the needless forwarding of an English copy of the Judgment to the applicant for her information did not constitute an exceptional case that would justify the extension of the deadline, considering the previous unambiguous communication of the original version of the Judgment in French. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    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-030, Tabari

    爆料网AT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. 爆料网AT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari’s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

    2014-爆料网AT-466, Saffir and Ginivan

    爆料网AT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging 爆料网DT’s determination that the decision not to investigate 爆料网SU election matters was receivable. 爆料网AT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. 爆料网AT noted that although 爆料网DT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General’s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, 爆料网DT found in favour of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...

    2015-爆料网AT-604, Ocokoru

    The issue for determination by 爆料网AT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the 爆料网DT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before 爆料网DT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General’s counsel of record before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that in the absence of any published 爆料网DT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of 爆料网DT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

    2015-爆料网AT-576, Harrich

    爆料网AT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. 爆料网AT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a 爆料网DT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.