Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute

  • 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 371 - 380 of 1006
    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-161, Kasyanov

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-076 by Mr Kasyanov in which he requested clarification as to whether the compensation awarded by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT was to be determined as of the date the breach occurred or as of the date the judgment was issued. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accepted the application and held that the compensation was to be calculated as of the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judgment.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-163, Masri

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-098. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the statutory requirements of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the alleged new information or misinterpretation of the date of a transaction did not constitute circumstances that warranted a revision, because they would not result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT for vacating the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and affirming the administrative decision of summary dismissal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application was not admissible since it repeated an argument already examined and...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-106, Piskolti

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Mr Paskolti¡¯s application for revision of former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to review a judgment of the former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ Administrative Tribunal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129, Beaudry

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-128, Macharia

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-015 by Ms. Macharia. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia provided no evidence upon which it could infer that there was bias or likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Izuako. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, with regard to the Legal Officer who allegedly had a personal friendship with Judge Boolell, there was no evidence for it to draw the conclusion that the Legal Officer influenced the proceedings or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judge in her decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ms. Macharia did not offer any evidence in support of her bare assertions casting serious doubt on the...

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-127, Luvai

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-014 by Mr Luvai. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the allegation that the Legal Officer who was assigned to the case before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was a Facebook ¡°friend¡± of Judge Boolell, the then Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT President, and of a few other people who could have been tangentially involved in the issues of the underlying dispute and that Judge Boolell somehow influenced the judge sitting on the instant case to rule improperly. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Luvai offered not a shred of proof of anything improper. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the application.

    2011-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-102, Muthuswami et al.

    The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-034. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-273, Rosana

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly established that the silence of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵEP management constituted an implied administrative decision and that this decision was taken on 31 August 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held the Appellant¡¯s request for management evaluation was time-barred and that the application was, therefore, not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-267, Achkar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

    2012-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-264, Seddik Ben Omar

    Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues had already been clearly defined by the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there was no record of the Appellant ever having sought or been granted leave to submit further submissions or evidence prior to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT decision under appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, consequently, failed to establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that the Appellant had not produced sufficient evidence of distress linked specifically to the placement of the Note to warrant compensation for emotional distress. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence...