爆料网

Temporal (ratione temporis)

  • Management Evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Management evaluation
  • Manifest excess of jurisdiction
  • Personal (ratione personae)
  • Subject matter (ratione materiae)
  • Temporal (ratione temporis)
  • Temporel (ratione temporis)
    • Showing 51 - 60 of 306
    2010-爆料网AT-074, Trajanovska

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s judgment in Rosca was no longer good law, having been overruled by 爆料网AT in Costa. 爆料网AT held that time limits prescribed for administrative review and management evaluation (in the new system) could not be waived under Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute, due to a specific prohibition in this respect contained in Article 8(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute, as interpreted by 爆料网DT in Costa and affirmed by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the application was time-barred and the delay in filing could not be condoned. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-073, Pellet

    爆料网AT held that it was open to 爆料网DT to consider the preliminary issue of whether the Appellant had legal standing even to challenge the administrative decision not to advertise the vacancies. 爆料网AT held there was no error in the 爆料网DT’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to contest the administrative decision since he was not an eligible candidate for any of the vacant posts. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had no stake in the administrative decision as his rights and terms were not affected by the fact that the posts were not advertised. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the ground that...

    2010-爆料网AT-072, Samardzic

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with 爆料网MIK. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how 爆料网DT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

    2010-爆料网AT-056, Shakir

    爆料网AT concurred with 爆料网DT that the case was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT noted that, while the Appellant referred to an accident that prevented her from filing on time, she did not mention this to 爆料网DT and raised it for the first time before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that, while Article 2. 5 of the 爆料网AT Statute allows it to admit further evidence in exceptional circumstances, it would not admit evidence that was known to the party and could have been presented to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-069, Ibrahim

    爆料网AT considered an appeal centred on the receivability of the appeal to the JAB. The Appellant had sought a waiver of the time limit to appeal before JAB on the basis that his legal counsel was away from Syria for medical treatment for a year. 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the Appellant’s 18-month delay in filing his appeal pending either his counsel’s return or replacement. 爆料网AT held that the JAB properly considered that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit to file an appeal to the JAB. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and...

    2010-爆料网AT-043, Mezoui

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant was caught in the transition between the old and new internal justice systems. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had requested an extension of the time limit to file an application with the former Administrative Tribunal and that it was questionable if anyone could have granted an extension since the new 爆料网DT had not officially started and the former Administrative Tribunal was winding down. 爆料网AT, therefore, held that the case should be remanded to 爆料网DT for consideration on merits. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment, and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a...

    2010-爆料网AT-068, Appellant

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant filed her claim against the wrong entity (the Secretary-General) when her case was, in actual fact, against 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT held that the claim was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that the appeal to JAB was also out of time. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2010-爆料网AT-067, Diagne et al.

    爆料网AT held that the Appellants each failed to bring themselves under the exceptional circumstances provision of former Staff Rule 111. 2(f). 爆料网AT held that there was no legal difference between exceptional circumstances and exceptional cases. 爆料网AT held that a delay can generally be excused only because of circumstances beyond an Appellant’s control. 爆料网AT held that no error in fact or in law was made by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2010-爆料网AT-013, Schook

    爆料网AT found that the Applicant’s appeal was receivable because he was not notified of any written administrative decision on non-extension of his contract after 31 December 2007. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT ignored that the time limit of two months, required by rule 111. 2(a), begins to run “from the date the staff member received notification of the decision in writing. ” As the Applicant was never communicated any written administrative decision, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in holding that the appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT set aside 爆料网DT’s judgment and remanded the case back to 爆料网DT to have the...