爆料网

Procedure (first instance and 爆料网AT)

  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
    • Showing 161 - 170 of 262
    2013-爆料网AT-349, Servas

    爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with 爆料网DT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

    2013-爆料网AT-363, Chaaban

    爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the application was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept 爆料网RWA’s late reply in circumstances where 爆料网RWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering 爆料网RWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration’s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. 爆料网AT held...

    2013-爆料网AT-354, Lebouef et al.

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-185. 爆料网AT held that the issues raised by the Applicants had already been addressed by 爆料网DT in its Case Management Order. 爆料网AT held that the Case Management Order was within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT, so there was no justification for any interference by this Tribunal. 爆料网AT held that the application for interpretation would lead to such interference and therefore could not be admitted. 爆料网AT rejected the application for interpretation.

    2013-爆料网AT-329, Perez-Soto

    Noting the broad discretion of 爆料网DT with respect to case management, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the contention that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of procedure either by not affording the Appellant a second case management hearing or by not sanctioning the Secretary-General for his failure to submit documents. On the Appellant’s submission that 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not addressing his right to a current job classification and the closing of his “evaluative past, including the issue of his performance appraisal”, 爆料网AT noted that these matters had been...

    2013-爆料网AT-304, Al Surkhi et al.

    爆料网AT held that the relevant Circular contained all the necessary components to give rise to legal consequences for the striking staff and that it had individual application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT committed no legal error when it decided that the relevant administrative decision for the purpose of former Area Staff Rule 111.3 was the decision communicated by way of the Circular and that 爆料网RWA DT correctly determined the terminus a quo for the purpose of computing the time for requesting administrative review. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网RWA DT’s determination as to the limits of its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT...

    2013-爆料网AT-282, Lauritzen

    On the alleged procedural error of the 爆料网DT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, 爆料网AT held that it was well within the competence of 爆料网DT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; 爆料网AT dismissed this ground of appeal. 爆料网AT held, affirming the finding of 爆料网DT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. 爆料网AT found no merit in the ground of appeal that 爆料网DT failed to consider that 爆料网HCR...

    2014-爆料网AT-440, Stoykov

    爆料网AT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant 爆料网DT Registry. 爆料网AT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. 爆料网AT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT...

    2014-爆料网AT-437, Charles

    爆料网AT considered two appeals by the staff member of 爆料网DT Order Nos. 109 and 110. 爆料网AT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before 爆料网DT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, 爆料网AT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. 爆料网AT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. 爆料网AT held that there was no statutory...

    2014-爆料网AT-426, Kacan

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to show that 爆料网DT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. 爆料网AT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to 爆料网DT for his witness to be called. 爆料网AT found that there was no mention of any witness in the 爆料网DT judgment and that it was not clear that 爆料网DT had considered that evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by 爆料网DT for not calling the witness. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

    2014-爆料网AT-423, Bastet

    爆料网AT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding 爆料网DT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 爆料网AT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 爆料网DT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, 爆料网AT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant...