爆料网

English

Showing 1031 - 1040 of 4321
2011-爆料网AT-155, Ansa-Emmim

爆料网AT held that the record reflected that: Michael and Jacqueline married in 1986; they had lived as husband and wife, and Jacqueline was Michael’s wife on the date of his separation from service in 1998 and on the date of his death in 2008. 爆料网AT held that Michael’s first wife was unable to produce a marriage certificate and the divorce decree she produced was not proof of marriage, despite the date of marriage having been mentioned therein. 爆料网AT held that the divorce decree could not be the sole basis of declaring Jacqueline’s marriage to Michael invalid. 爆料网AT held that Jacqueline was entitled...

2011-爆料网AT-158, Laeijendecker

爆料网AT took into account that the Appellant only made his request some 29 months after the expiration of the deadline and that he did not submit any medical report. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网JSPB decision.

2011-爆料网AT-157, Onana

爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. 爆料网AT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the 爆料网DT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2011-爆料网AT-156, Taylor

爆料网AT held that the Appellant was essentially seeking an amendment to the Regulations of the 爆料网JPSF in such a way as to enable her benefit to be paid retroactively to the date of the death in service of her husband, which was prior to 1 April 1999. 爆料网AT held that the criteria proposed by the Appellant to pay the benefit were not in force to be applied to her case. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网JSPF correctly applied the 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned decision.

2011-爆料网AT-168, Yapa

爆料网AT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Yapa. On the issue of the two-year ban on promotion, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law in considering that the general legal principle that a sanction may not be imposed on any person unless expressly provided for by a rule in force on the date of the facts held against that person must be respected in disciplinary matters. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on a question of law in finding that the sanction of a two-year ban on promotion lacked a legal basis. On the written censure and demotion, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did...

2011-爆料网AT-170, Kapsou

爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to seek administrative review of the contested decision before launching an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board (JAB). 爆料网AT held that those steps had to have been exhausted before invoking the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in considering that the decision of 10 October 2008 was merely a confirmation of an earlier decision. 爆料网AT held that the decision of 10 October 2008 was a new administrative decision for which the Applicant did not seek administrative review. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网DT has no jurisdiction to waive the requirement of a prior...

2011-爆料网AT-147, Osman

爆料网AT noted that, in finding the application to be time-barred, 爆料网DT considered whether any exceptional circumstances existed to allow a waiver of the time limits and found that neither health problems nor the need to replace counsel constituted justification in the specific circumstances of the case. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error warranting the reversal of the first instance judgment, whose conclusions it endorsed, as they relied on a correct application of the law. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

2011-爆料网AT-101, Mezoui

爆料网AT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-043 on the issue of to which 爆料网DT Registry 爆料网AT remanded Ms Mezoui’s case; two appeals from 爆料网DT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. 爆料网AT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have 爆料网AT interfere with 爆料网DT’s assignment of venue. 爆料网AT held that venue was a matter for the trial court’s discretion, with which it would not interfere. 爆料网AT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. 爆料网AT denied the application for...