爆料网

Procedure (first instance and 爆料网AT)

  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Case management
  • Confidentiality
  • Oral hearings
  • Production of documents
    • Showing 191 - 200 of 262
    2016-爆料网AT-649, 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 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 a request...

    2016-爆料网AT-648, 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 configured 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 a...

    2016-爆料网AT-647, 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. 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 爆料网DT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

    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...

    2016-爆料网AT-628, Taneja 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 process rights. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and...

    2017-爆料网AT-797, Benamar

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by 爆料网DT (by audio conference) as verified by 爆料网AT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist 爆料网AT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, 爆料网AT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

    2017-爆料网AT-792, Chhikara

    爆料网AT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their “key” answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. 爆料网AT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara’s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

    2017-爆料网AT-790, Anshasi

    爆料网AT held that it was not persuaded that 爆料网RWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to differ from 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that 爆料网RWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

    2017-爆料网AT-779, Abu Hweidi et al.

    Ar爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. 爆料网AT held that the inference drawn by 爆料网RWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

    2017-爆料网AT-772, Kadri

    On the Appellant’s claim for his name not to appear in the 爆料网AT judgment, 爆料网AT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT, it would be pointless to order redaction. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. 爆料网AT held that there was no...