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.
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how 爆料网DT had erred on questions of...
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 considered whether the Commissioner-General erred in adopting the JAB’s recommendation not to accept the Appellant’s withdrawal letter and whether the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral and material damages. 爆料网AT referred to Jordan Field Staff Circular No. J/17/97, which provides that withdrawal of resignations will normally not be accepted unless it is evident that such withdrawal is in the sole interest of the work. 爆料网AT noted that the evidence on record revealed that the Appellant’s services were unsatisfactory. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant provided no evidence of...
爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal and found that she did not demonstrate that her request for an extension of time was reasonable. 爆料网AT found that the evidence about negotiations being contemplated, needed, or underway was previously refuted on appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had the time and the assistance of legal counsel to advance her application and did not avail herself of those opportunities. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the appeal.
爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT stated the principle that 爆料网DT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes 爆料网DT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request 爆料网DT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...
爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing considering it not necessary and that it would unduly delay the delivery of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that appeals against decisions taken in the course of proceedings, including orders imposing interim measures, were non-receivable, even when 爆料网DT committed an error of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, 爆料网AT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the 爆料网DT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the 爆料网DT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the 爆料网DT RoP. 爆料网AT set aside the 爆料网DT judgment and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the 爆料网AT judgment.
爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT considered that 爆料网DT failed to show proper consideration for judicial economy and efficiency by choosing to proceed with a hearing on the merits of Mr Cooke’s application in full knowledge of an appeal by the Secretary-General and ignoring the possibility that its judgment on Receivability might be reversed, as it was. 爆料网AT held that when it determines that 爆料网DT improperly received an application and reverses or vacates a judgment on receivability, any judgment on the merits is null and void ab initio. 爆料网AT clarified that this did not...
