爆料网

Jurisdiction / receivability (爆料网DT or first instance)

  • Management Evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Temporel (ratione temporis)
    • Showing 381 - 390 of 1228
    2016-爆料网AT-644, Survo

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since 爆料网DT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). 爆料网AT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

    2016-爆料网AT-643, Harb

    爆料网AT held that there was merit in the Appellant’s argument that the issue to be decided was not whether he was entitled or not to the SOA, but the refusal of its retroactive payment at the correct rate from the date of the signature of his post description. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it failed to consider that the Appellant was contesting a specific decision denying him a retrospective payment of the higher SOA. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law in deciding that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being brought within the scope of judicial...

    2016-爆料网AT-639, Buff

    爆料网AT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. 爆料网AT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request to file a reply to the Respondent’s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s second motion seeking leave to present additional “information” which she claimed related to...

    2016-爆料网AT-633, Bharati

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-631, Thomas et al.

    爆料网AT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due...

    2016-爆料网AT-632, Jaishankar

    爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellant’s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant’s request for more time into an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant’s due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2016-爆料网AT-630, Bhatia et al.

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    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-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-629, Prasad et al.

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not addressed the Appellants’ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants’ request for more time into applications. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants’ due process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...