51猎奇

Article 8.4

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10(4)
  • Article 10(5)(a)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11(4)
  • Article 11(5)
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 3
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.2
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2023-UNAT-1360, Moner Ahmed Nasser

    The UNAT held that UNRWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the UNRWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

    The UNAT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the UNRWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

    2013-UNAT-363, Chaaban

    UNAT held there was no error in the UNRWA DT’s finding that the application was time-barred. UNAT held that UNRWA DT has, in principle, the discretion to accept UNRWA’s late reply in circumstances where UNRWA has not filed a motion seeking leave to do so and without proprio motu ordering UNRWA to file a reply. Noting the Administration’s reply was due before the transitional period into the new system of justice began, UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred when it granted a waiver of time after an excessive period of time had passed which was based on inaccurate facts and an invalid reason. UNAT held...

    2015-UNAT-579, Achkar

    UNAT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. UNAT inferred that the Appellant claimed UNRWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. UNAT held that the legal conclusion of UNDT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNRWA DT judgment.

    2020-UNAT-1060, Abu Rabei

    UNAT considered that the 1994 and 2018 requests made by the Appellant to change his date of birth were essentially the same requests. UNAT recalled that the reiteration of an original administrative decision if repeatedly questioned, does not reset the clock with respect to the statutory timeline. UNAT held that the statutory period during which the Appellant had to file a challenge to the 1994 decision expired in 1997. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in dismissing the application. On consideration of the Respondent’s claim to award costs, UNAT was not satisfied that the pursuit of the...