Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Article 8.4

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10(4)
  • Article 10(5)(a)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11(4)
  • Article 11(5)
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 3
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2023-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1360, Moner Ahmed Nasser

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

    The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

    2013-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-363, Chaaban

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held there was no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s finding that the application was time-barred. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA¡¯s late reply in circumstances where Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration¡¯s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA 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. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

    2015-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-579, Achkar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT inferred that the Appellant claimed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the legal conclusion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT judgment.

    2020-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-1060, Abu Rabei

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent¡¯s claim to award costs, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...