爆料网

Article 10

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 14
    2010-爆料网AT-049, Planas

    爆料网AT held that an introductory argument concerning the content of the other party's observations or aspects of administrative conduct that was not raised at the first instance is largely inadmissible. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that, as the Appellant did not contest in precise terms her non-selection for any post, she did not identify any administrative decision in her application. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had at no time requested management evaluation, or sought administrative review as required under the former internal justice system. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and...

    2016-爆料网AT-615, Ejaz, Elizabeth, Cherian and Cone

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. 爆料网AT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. 爆料网AT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

    2021-爆料网AT-1118, Boubacar Dieng

    爆料网AT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, 爆料网AT disagreed with the staff member that the 爆料网DT...

    爆料网DT/2010/061, Sanwidi

    Having considered the parties’ submissions on the matter of the appropriate relief for the Applicant, the Tribunal: (i) Orders rescission of the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant; (ii) Orders the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant; (iii) Orders the Respondent to make good the Applicant’s lost earnings from the date of his summary dismissal to the date of his reinstatement with interest at 8% less US$ 2,600 per month for the said period; (iv) Orders that the Applicant be served a written reprimand to be filed in his Official Status File for the reasons cited at paragraph 8.1 (iii)...

    爆料网DT/2013/176, Nguyen-Kropp and Postica

    The 爆料网DT found that the decision that there was “reason to believe” that the Applicants may have committed misconduct was manifestly unreasonable, arrived at in breach of due process, and was thus unlawful. The 爆料网DT found that the Applicants’ rights were not respected during the subsequent preliminary investigation. The 爆料网DT found that the decision to conduct an investigation against the Applicants and the manner in which it was carried out was tainted by procedural irregularity and manifest unfairness. The 爆料网DT found that the Applicants had engaged in protected activity, namely, reporting of...

    爆料网DT/2013/164, Cobarrubias

    The Applicant alleged that his due process rights were breached and that the sanction was not proportional. Upon review, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent correctly established the facts but did not fully take into account the mitigating circumstances. The sanction applied is therefore too harsh and is modified by the Tribunal. The contested decision is rescinded and the Applicant is to be reinstated. The disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and without termination indemnities applied to him is replaced with the sanctions of a written...

    爆料网DT/2013/032, Tadonki

    Improper motives: The Tribunal held that the non-renewal of the Applicant’s contract was motivated by improper motives in view of the fact that: (i) the Applicant’s relationship with the 爆料网 Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), under whose leadership the Applicant was working, was hostile; and (ii) the HC and the Applicant’s deputy, who had unsuccessfully competed for the Applicant’s post, had gone to great lengths to undermine him and to tarnish his reputation with OCHA leadership.

    Performance: The Tribunal held that while the Applicant may have made mistakes, shown an excessive zeal, or may have...

    爆料网DT/2014/025, Flores

    The Applicant contended, inter alia, that WFP breached her due process rights during the disciplinary proceedings and she did not breach any of the applicable rules. The evidence before the Tribunal sustained the Applicant’s contention that WFP’s investigators did not respect her due process rights. The ground of appeal related to the irregularity of the disciplinary proceeding is accepted and the Tribunal does not need to analyse the rest of the Applicant’s contentions. The rescission of the contested decision is, per se, a fair and sufficient remedy for the moral prejudice caused to the...