Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-043 on the issue of to which Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Registry Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT remanded Ms Mezoui¡¯s case; two appeals from Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT interfere with Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT¡¯s assignment of venue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court¡¯s discretion, with which it would not interfere. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT denied the application for interpretation as unnecessary and interlocutory. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT denied the motion for joinder of interlocutory appeals and their fast-track hearing as interlocutory and moot. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT denied all of Ms Mezoui¡¯s interlocutory appeals.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Previous Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT judgment and Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT orders: Ms Mezoui contested a determination by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT that her case was not receivable. In Judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-043, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT for a hearing on the merits. In Order No. 71 (GVA/2010), Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT ordered, inter alia, that the case be reopened, that a copy of a memorandum be transmitted to Ms Mezoui and that she must file a complete application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT in Geneva by a certain date. In Order No. 73 (GVA/2010), Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT rejected her motion for a change of venue.
Legal Principle(s)
Generally, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT will not entertain interlocutory appeals.