Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 8.3

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)¨C(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 61 - 70 of 179
    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-609, Siri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-644, Survo

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-633, Bharati

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-632, Jaishankar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Appellant¡¯s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant¡¯s request for more time into an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant¡¯s due process rights. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-631, Thomas et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal from Thomas et al. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-630, Bhatia et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-629, Prasad et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-628, Taneja et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants¡¯ request for more time into applications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-618, Subramanian et al.

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not address the staff members¡¯ requests for an extension of time and that instead had converted sua sponte the requests for an extension of time into ¡°incomplete¡± applications, adjudging the applications not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not afforded the staff members the opportunity to file an application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its competence and jurisdiction and committed errors in procedure when it determined that the requests for an extension of time were the ¡°equivalent¡± of applications; inferred that the statements in the requests for an...

    2016-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-613, Gehr

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that despite acknowledging that under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence, a rebuttal panel is not a technical body, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT declined to follow its jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred by waiving the management evaluation as a receivability requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction, and made an error of law when it received an application, which was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal was upheld and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in its entirety.