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.
In judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment. In judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr. 1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General’s defence. 爆料网AT held, therefore, that the 爆料网DT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment. The case was remanded to 爆料网DT to be heard afresh.
In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050, 爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable since it was not filed within 45 calendar days of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to receive the Appellant’s appeal before the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment. In Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-050/Corr.1, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was granted an extension of time to file an appeal to 16 February 2010 and he filed his appeal on that date. 爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s submission that the appeal was...
爆料网AT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and...
爆料网AT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new 爆料网DT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. 爆料网AT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to 爆料网DT for consideration on merits. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment, and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a...
爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the 爆料网DT order as not receivable, finding that 爆料网DT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. 爆料网AT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.
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.
爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the exclusion of the right to appeal a decision on the suspension of action on an administrative is an exception to the general principle of law and must be narrowly interpreted. 爆料网AT held that this exception can only be applied to jurisdictional decisions ordering the suspension of implementation of an administrative decision when a management evaluation is ongoing. 爆料网AT accordingly held that 爆料网AT exceeded its competence when it ordered the suspension of the present action until the judgment on the merits of the Appellant’s...
The Secretary-General appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against the 爆料网DT’s interpretation of judgment. It found that the appeal was not receivable because the interpretation of a judgment is not a fresh decision or judgment within the meaning of Article 2. 1 of the 爆料网AT Statute.
