Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 2.10

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 31 - 39 of 39
    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-983, Webster

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, specifying that the Appellant¡¯s appeal should be reconsidered and...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1150, Andrea Barbato

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to the SAB, directing that the appeal be reconsidered by a neutral first instance process that issues a final decision. Citing Dispert & Hoe, Spinardi, Sheffer, Fogarty, and Fogarty et al., the Tribunal explained that the SAB must satisfy the requirement under Article 2 (10) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute, which requires that the first instance process produce a final decision on the appeal and not a recommendation to the Secretary-General, as was the case under the then IMO Staff Regulations and Staff Rules (SRSR). The Tribunal also called into question whether the IMO Secretary...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1148, Secretary-General of IMO

    The Secretary-General of IMO is essentially seeking comments on the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment under the guise of an application for interpretation, something Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT expressly proscribed in Kasmani. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s Fogarty Judgment clearly and unambiguously explicates the nature of the difficulty in a manner that requires no further interpretation. There is no ambiguity, uncertainty or irreconcilable conflict on the question remanded or the reasons for the remand or in the comments in paragraph 25 of the Fogarty Judgment that justifies an application for interpretation. While the applications for...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1141, Najway Yusef, Imad El Manasri, Rabie Abdulghani

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, although the appeal was technically inadequate because the Appellants had failed to specifically identify the errors allegedly committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, it had previously recognised that if an appellant was not legally represented some latitude may be allowed in the interests of justice. Accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would review the merits of the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred on a question of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision by failing to consider the full application and the question of when the Appellants received notification of the...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1117, Margaret Mary Fogarty

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that while the SAB may satisfy the requirements of a neutral first instance process, its decision is only advisory or recommendatory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the facts did not disclose whether the Secretary-General of IMO had the power to amend the powers of the SAB retrospectively to permit the SAB to make a decision rather than a recommendation or, more pertinently, by subsequent fiat, to convert a recommendation of SAB into a decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the source of the Secretary-General¡¯s power to introduce interim measures was not clear and that there may be other constraints upon his...

    2021-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1089, Van Khanh Nguyen

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ-ISA Special Agreement and the resulting ISA Staff Rules do not comply with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and, consequently, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT is unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second-level tribunal. The jurisdictional power of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, ratione personae, and ratione materiae cannot be established or extended unilaterally by the litigating parties through a procedural contract, expressly or tacitly agreed.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2021/154, Rolli

    The IOO audit, indeed, did not have the character of a disciplinary investigation into any possible wrongdoing(s), including misconduct, of the Applicant. Rather, as argued by the Applicant, it appears that no disciplinary process whatsoever was undertaken. Consequently, the Applicant was not afforded any of the mandatory procedural safeguards outlined in para. 35(a)-(c) of the Judgment, namely (a) the right to be advised of the allegation of misconduct, (b) the right to comment thereupon, and (c) the right to be represented be a lawyer before the decision on misconduct was made and the...