Jurisdiction / receivability (罌厭弝ⅰAT) | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-101, Mezoui

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT had before it: an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2010-罌厭弝ⅰAT-043 on the issue of to which 罌厭弝ⅰDT Registry 罌厭弝ⅰAT remanded Ms Mezoui＊s case; two appeals from 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order Nos. 71 (GVA/2010) and 73 (GVA/2010); and a motion for joinder and fast-track hearing. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the application for interpretation was a ruse to have 罌厭弝ⅰAT interfere with 罌厭弝ⅰDT＊s assignment of venue. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that venue was a matter for the trial court＊s discretion, with which it would not interfere. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it would not, generally, entertain interlocutory appeals. 罌厭弝ⅰAT denied the application for...

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-166, Gakehmi

21 Oct 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that it was not competent to revise the judgments of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administration Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was not receivable and dismissed the application.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-165, Cherif

21 Oct 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the contested decisions of the ICAO Council are not administrative decisions within the mandate of 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that these decisions are regulatory decisions that are not subject to review by 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-144, Thiam

8 Jul 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-113, Kamanou

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the appeal was receivable because 罌厭弝ⅰDT had committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to 罌厭弝ⅰDT for a de novo review.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-106, Piskolti

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered Mr Paskolti＊s application for revision of former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal judgment No. 1459. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that Article 11 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Statute and Article 24 of the 罌厭弝ⅰAT Rules of Procedure did not confer jurisdiction on 罌厭弝ⅰAT to review a judgment of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the application for revision on the grounds of non-receivability.

2011-罌厭弝ⅰAT-104, Sanwidi

11 Mar 2011

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal of judgment No. 罌厭弝ⅰDT/2010/061 on compensation. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, as it had previously overturned the judgment on the merits (which found in favour of Mr Sanwidi), the foundation for an award of compensation no longer existed and the appeal was moot. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the judgment on compensation was automatically vacated when it overturned the judgment on the merits. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment.

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-252, Khambatta

29 Jun 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that appeals against decisions taken during proceedings are receivable only in exceptional circumstances where 罌厭弝ⅰDT has manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that even though 罌厭弝ⅰDT may have committed a procedural error, it had not exceeded its jurisdiction. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal.

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-269, Hamad

1 Nov 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT was correct in applying Former 罌厭弝ⅰRWA Area Staff Rule 106. 1. 16 to calculate the interest applicable to the Appellant＊s pay-out and that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT had not erred in this regard. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the contention that the Administrative Rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund apply to the Appellant＊s situation had no merit and had been raised for the first time on appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT had erred in finding that the Appellant＊s terms and conditions of employment are governed solely and exclusively by the Agency...

2012-罌厭弝ⅰAT-268, Bangoura

1 Nov 2012

罌厭弝ⅰAT considered appeals by both Mr Bangoura and the Secretary-General. Mr Bangoura requested oral hearings was rejected. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the case would be decided on law and that the pertinent documents were on record. Regarding the Secretary-General＊s appeal, 罌厭弝ⅰAT noted that the staff member had requested the execution of a part of judgment No. 1029 of the former 罌厭弝ⅰ Administrative Tribunal and that Tribunal had established a procedure for staff members wishing to challenge the non-execution of a judgment. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the staff member needed to make a request for review of the administrative...