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 151 - 160 of 209
    2016-爆料网AT-621, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. 爆料网AT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. 爆料网AT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, 爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

    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...

    2016-爆料网AT-613, Gehr

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that despite acknowledging that under 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, 爆料网DT declined to follow its jurisprudence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment in its entirety.

    2017-爆料网AT-800, King

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. 爆料网AT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute and was therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-789, Barakat

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the 爆料网RWA DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant’s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-746, Auda

    爆料网AT held that the fact that the non-renewal decision was communicated verbally was, by itself, of no consequence since there is no explicit requirement in law for such notification to be in writing. 爆料网AT noted that Staff Rule 11. 2(c) does not require a written notification as a prerequisite to contest an administrative decision. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment dismissing the staff member’s application but set aside it's finding that the application was receivable.

    2017-爆料网AT-762, Lemmonier

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. On the issue of receivability, contrary to Mr Lemonnier’s contention that the Secretary-General’s appeal is not receivable because the impugned judgment did not award him any damages and was mere “a moral victory”, 爆料网AT held that success before 爆料网DT depends on whether the staff member’s application is granted, in whole or in part, not on the remedy afforded to the staff member, and that the staff member may prevail or succeed on his claim(s) without receiving an award of damages. According to 爆料网AT, as the unsuccessful party before 爆料网DT, the...

    2018-爆料网AT-894, B. Kosbeh et al.

    Having decided that an oral hearing would not “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case,” as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP, 爆料网AT denied the Applicants’ request for one. 爆料网AT also decided that the Appellants could not introduce additional evidence since that evidence had not been presented before 爆料网RWA DT and no application had been made to 爆料网AT to be allowed to submit that evidence on appeal. 爆料网AT noted that an appeal is not receivable where an Applicant bypassed the jurisdiction of the first instance Judge, by directly lodging an appeal with the Appeals Tribunal against...

    2018-爆料网AT-886, Rehman

    爆料网AT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

    2018-爆料网AT-870, Cherneva

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before 爆料网DT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that 爆料网DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.