Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµ

2019-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-943

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT clarified, did not mean that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT had dismissed the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT issued an Order (No. 003 (NBI/2019) in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT found that the Applicant had failed to articulate her application properly and failed to identify in clear terms the administrative decision of which she was seeking review. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT concluded that there was therefore no proper application before it for determination and ordered that the Applicant¡¯s case be struck out.

Legal Principle(s)

An interlocutory order by Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT is only appealable when Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Hassan
Case Number(s)
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type