爆料网

Article 7.5

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 25
    017 (NBI/2025), Tarek Abdou
    • Appealed
    Having filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application with a fast-approaching deadline, Counsel should have monitored the case file for a ruling but failed to do so. Considering the amount of time Counsel spent drafting and filing motions for extension of time, he could have filed an application instead. This resulted in more resources being expended by the Applicant’s Counsel and by the Tribunal in dealing with the motions. However, the Applicant should not suffer prejudice because of his Counsel’s neglect.
    011 (NBI/2025), Cynthia Cline
    • Appealed
    The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to justify the granting of a brief extension of the deadline to file her application. A broken computer had the effect of preventing even the most essential access. The Tribunal considered that it was in the interest of justice to permit the brief extension to allow the Applicant to have her case heard on the merits, and that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by such extension of the deadline.
    2023-爆料网AT-1406, Kamal Karki

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for anonymity as the issue presented in his appeal was purely procedural and jurisdictional and did not involve any personal data which had to be protected.

    The 爆料网AT also denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that it would not assist the Appeals Tribunal in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case.

    The 爆料网AT held that because the Appellant filed his application 93 days after the receipt of the contested administrative decision, it was not receivable, absent waiver of the deadline of the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT observed that given...

    2010-爆料网AT-055, Hijaz

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s decision on an Appellant’s request to suspend, waive or extend deadlines is not a judgment made in respect of an appeal against an administrative decision, within the meaning of Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute, since no appeal had yet been filed. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that 爆料网DT’s decision on the Appellant’s request of extension could not be appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-067, Diagne et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). 爆料网AT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. 爆料网AT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. 爆料网AT held that no error in fact or in law was made by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2012-爆料网AT-275, Cooke

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT, under Article 8.3 of its Statute, was authorised to waive the time limits for filing applications in certain situations but that the staff member had failed to submit a written request for a waiver and to justify exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not consider whether exceptional circumstances existed unless the staff had submitted a prior written request for waiver. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had interpreted Articles 19 and 35 of the 爆料网DT RoP in a manner that conflicted with Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the 爆料网DT...

    2015-爆料网AT-552, Gallo

    爆料网AT held that it could discern no error in 爆料网DT’s computation of the applicable time limits. 爆料网AT considered that the 爆料网DT decision that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Appellant’s claim was reasonable and there were no grounds for overturning it. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-618, Subramanian et al.

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not address the staff members’ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into “incomplete” applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the “equivalent” of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

    2020-爆料网AT-1035, Gelsei

    爆料网AT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. 爆料网AT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

    爆料网DT/2009/060, Lutta

    Respondent’s Counsel filed a motion seeking an extension of the time limit to file the Respondent’s reply on several grounds, including exigencies of service. The Respondent was enjoined to submit a proper application requesting that he should be allowed to take part in the proceedings. The determination of whether he was going to be authorized to file a reply was going to be taken in the light of the Respondent’s motion.