English | SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-632, Jaishankar

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not addressed the Appellant＊s request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into an incomplete application and summarily adjudged the application as not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellant＊s request for more time into an application. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not afforded the Appellant the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellant＊s due process rights. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-630, Bhatia et al.

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not addressed the Appellants＊ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants＊ request for more time into applications. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants＊ due process rights. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-650, Nielsen

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant＊s rights as a staff member, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 罌厭弝ⅰAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-627, El Rush

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing and the production of documents since there was no need for further clarification. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant＊s contentions regarding the application of the Palestinian Labour Law No. 7 (2000) and the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT＊s error in calculating the time limits were misconceived. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, regarding the procedure and timeline involved in challenging administrative decisions, former 罌厭弝ⅰWRA Area Staff Rule 111. 3, which was in effect at the material time when the Appellant＊s contract as a teacher was terminated, was applicable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT agreed with the...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-626, Masri

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT held that, since the Appellant had not made an application to the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA Internal Justice Committee on the issue of the recusal and conflict of interest, it would not permit the issue to be raised for the first time on appeal. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish in his appeal that it was unreasonable for 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT to conclude that there was no evidence of bias in the decision to abolish his post. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 罌厭弝ⅰRWA DT judgment.

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-648, Nielsen

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant＊s rights as a staff member, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 罌厭弝ⅰAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-629, Prasad et al.

24 Mar 2016

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-628, Taneja et al.

3 May 2018

罌厭弝ⅰAT found that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not addressed the Appellants＊ request for an extension of time but had rather converted sua sponte the request into incomplete applications and summarily adjudged their applications as not receivable. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT could not have converted sua sponte the Appellants＊ request for more time into applications. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had not afforded the Appellants the opportunity to file an application and had committed several procedural errors, exceeded its jurisdiction and competence, and violated the Appellants＊ due process rights. 罌厭弝ⅰAT vacated the 罌厭弝ⅰDT judgment and...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-647, Nielsen

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the staff member＊s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of 罌厭弝ⅰAT. 罌厭弝ⅰAT dismissed the appeal against 罌厭弝ⅰDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that 罌厭弝ⅰDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

2016-罌厭弝ⅰAT-649, Nielsen

24 Mar 2016

罌厭弝ⅰAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant＊s rights as a staff member, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have 罌厭弝ⅰAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, 罌厭弝ⅰAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...