爆料网

Jurisdiction / receivability (爆料网AT)

  • Appeal
  • Interlocutory appeal
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • 爆料网JSPB
    • Showing 111 - 120 of 209
    2013-爆料网AT-327, Tiwathia

    爆料网AT noted that appeals from 爆料网DT decisions on suspensions of action will only be receivable if 爆料网DT, in adjudicating such applications, exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s legal and factual reasoning fell entirely within its competence and jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that, although the Appellant’s claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT judgment, they did not amount to claims that the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal.

    2013-爆料网AT-314, Mpacko

    爆料网AT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the 爆料网DT decision and did not amount to claims that the 爆料网DT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable.

    2013-爆料网AT-320, Masri

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-163 (judgment on application for revision). 爆料网AT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网AT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. 爆料网AT held that the application for...

    2013-爆料网AT-286, Charles

    爆料网AT noted that the Appellant merely repeated arguments submitted before 爆料网DT and recalled that an appellant has the burden of satisfying 爆料网AT that the 爆料网DT judgment was defective and must state the grounds upon which he or she relies, and that merely stating disagreement or repeating previous arguments was insufficient. 爆料网AT held that Secretary-General’s reports and memoranda lacked the legal authority vested in properly promulgated administrative issuances. 爆料网AT noted the relevant administrative instruction on the staff selection process (ST/AI/2010/3) was silent on the requirement for...

    2013-爆料网AT-284, Charles

    爆料网AT considered that: the Appellant had responded in the negative to two questions about his experience in the pre-screening questions, but that he was long-listed; 爆料网DT had decided that the hiring manager did not commit a procedural error in not evaluating all candidates, but took into consideration the objective criteria i. e. the years of experience required; the Administration was in a position to justify its decisions as not arbitrary; and the Appellant failed to meet his burden of proving the alleged discrimination. 爆料网AT held that the appeal expressed disagreement with the impugned...

    2013-爆料网AT-323, Sims

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-154. 爆料网AT held that the new evidence was irrelevant because the case was not receivable; neither 爆料网DT nor 爆料网AT had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Sims’ case. 爆料网AT denied the application.

    2014-爆料网AT-481, Lee

    爆料网AT considered appeals of Order Nos. 182 (GVA/2013), 183 (GVA/2013), and 199 (GVA/2013), and Summary judgment No. 爆料网DT/2013/147. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s requests for oral proceedings, confidentiality, to file additional proceedings, to file additional documentary evidence, and to order production of documents. With respect to Orders Nos. 182, 183 and 199, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in issuing these orders and in denying the Appellant’s applications to suspend action. 爆料网AT held that the appeals of these Orders were not...

    2014-爆料网AT-466, Saffir and Ginivan

    爆料网AT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General challenging 爆料网DT’s determination that the decision not to investigate 爆料网SU election matters was receivable. 爆料网AT held by majority that the appeal was not receivable, based on jurisprudence that a party may not appeal against a judgment in which it has prevailed. 爆料网AT noted that although 爆料网DT reviewed the merits of the decision despite the Secretary-General’s argument that the decision was not receivable ratione materiae, 爆料网DT found in favour of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that, as there was no negative impact to the Secretary-General...