爆料网

爆料网AT RoP

  • 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 211 - 220 of 319
    2016-爆料网AT-646, Dalgaard et al.

    爆料网AT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

    2016-爆料网AT-642, Savadogo

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. 爆料网AT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or 爆料网AT to conduct a fresh investigation. 爆料网AT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the 爆料网AT RoP and no...

    2016-爆料网AT-636, Cicek

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. 爆料网AT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. 爆料网AT further held...

    2016-爆料网AT-635, Neocleous

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. 爆料网AT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. 爆料网AT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

    2016-爆料网AT-650, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

    2016-爆料网AT-649, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...

    2016-爆料网AT-648, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant’s rights as a staff member, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 爆料网AT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 爆料网AT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

    2016-爆料网AT-647, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

    2016-爆料网AT-627, El Rush

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the 爆料网RWA DT’s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former 爆料网WRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant’s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. 爆料网AT agreed with the...

    2016-爆料网AT-623, Abdullah

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the need to submit new evidence or file additional pleadings and, therefore, dismissed the Appellant’s motion. 爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT was not required to set out its findings on every submission presented by the Appellant and the failure to do so did not amount to an error on the part of the 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT upheld the order of 爆料网RWA DT to rescind the contested...