爆料网

Article 7.4

  • 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 - 4 of 4
    2025-爆料网AT-1525, Abdurrahman Turk

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had filed his appeal more than a year after the issuance of the 爆料网DT Judgment and even if he had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

    The 爆料网AT nevertheless noted that the staff member’s application filed with the 爆料网DT was not receivable under the doctrine of res judicata because the 爆料网AT had already affirmed in its earlier judgment a 爆料网DT judgment deciding his challenge to the same administrative decision.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member sought to...

    2015-爆料网AT-516, Fiala

    爆料网AT considered two appeals by the Secretary-General against Order No. 136 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2014/007. 爆料网AT held that it was not satisfied that the actions of the Secretary-General in filing two appeals amounted to an abuse of process and declined Ms Fiala’s application for an award of costs against the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of law or fact on the part of 爆料网DT in deeming Ms Fiala’s application receivable. Noting that the weight to be attributed to evidence was a matter for 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT held that the arguments advanced by the Secretary-General did not...

    2017-爆料网AT-800, King

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. 爆料网AT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute and was therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.