爆料网

爆料网AT Statute

  • 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 371 - 380 of 1006
    2011-爆料网AT-161, Kasyanov

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by 爆料网AT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. 爆料网AT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2011-爆料网AT-163, Masri

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-098. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT for vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. 爆料网AT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

    2011-爆料网AT-106, Piskolti

    爆料网AT considered Mr Paskolti’s application for revision of former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. 爆料网AT held that Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on 爆料网AT to review a judgment of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

    2011-爆料网AT-129, Beaudry

    爆料网AT considered Ms Beaudry’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-129. 爆料网AT held that Ms Beaudry’s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the 爆料网AT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. 爆料网AT dismissed the application.

    2011-爆料网AT-128, Macharia

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-015 by Ms. Macharia. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. 爆料网AT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the 爆料网DT Judge in her decision. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

    2011-爆料网AT-127, Luvai

    爆料网AT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-014 by Mr Luvai. 爆料网AT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before 爆料网DT was a Facebook “friend” of Judge Boolell, the then 爆料网DT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. 爆料网AT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. 爆料网AT denied the application.

    2011-爆料网AT-102, Muthuswami et al.

    The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-爆料网AT-034. 爆料网AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2012-爆料网AT-273, Rosana

    爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had correctly established that the silence of the 爆料网EP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. 爆料网AT held the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2012-爆料网AT-267, Achkar

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

    2012-爆料网AT-264, Seddik Ben Omar

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. 爆料网AT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the 爆料网DT decision under appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. 爆料网AT held that the evidence...