爆料网

Article 10.5(a)

  • 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 89
    2025-爆料网AT-1575, Ivan Aguilar Valle

    The 爆料网AT found that Article 9(4) of the 爆料网DT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the 爆料网DT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

    The 爆料网AT found that...

    爆料网DT/2025/021, AEM

    The Tribunal found that the 29 February 2024 decision constituted a fresh administrative decision and not a mere reiteration of the 9 August 2023 decision as argued by the Respondent.

    Just as a staff member may not reset the clock by repeatedly questioning the original decision, the Organization may not freeze the clock and deprive a staff member of their right to a new decision based on new circumstances.

    The substantive issue in this case was whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements. The Tribunal found that the...

    爆料网DT/2024/071, Fusco

    Compensation in lieu is “not related at all to the economic loss suffered” (see Nega 2023-爆料网AT-1393,para. 62) and there is no duty to mitigate loss as a precondition for receiving in lieu compensation (see Zachariah 2017-爆料网AT-764). It is, according to the Tribunal’s Statute, an option that the Respondent can take instead of reinstating the Applicant in the service. Therefore, pecuniary loss or gain is not a relevant factor.

    Consistent with the requirement to act fairly, justly and transparently, the Respondent bears the burden to show that the Applicant did not possess the core and functional...

    爆料网DT/2023/117, Isufi

    The Applicant lost a significant portion of his annual leave balance because the Administration used that leave to address the period of unlawful separation. This ongoing injury is of sufficient collateral consequence to preclude mootness despite the partial reversal of the direct effects of the contested decision. Thus, even if the Applicant was reinstated, there remained a live controversy between the parties and as such, the application is not moot.

    The contested decision in the case at hand is the non-renewal decision. There is no separate litigation of the decision to charge absence to...

    爆料网DT/2023/063, Soobrayan

    The Tribunal assessed the evidence gathered by the investigators in relation to each incident and concluded that, in most instances, there was no direct or corroboratory evidence of harassment or sexual harassment, and the investigators based their conclusions solely on V01’s narrative. Since almost all the evidence in support of the finding of misconduct comes from V01’s testimony, in opposition to that of the Applicant, establishing V01’s credibility is an essential exercise for a proper adjudication of the case.

    However, the investigation failed to adequately establish the reliability of...

    爆料网DT/2023/024, Das

    Whether the application is receivable

    Having reviewed the application in its entirety, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant identified the decision of 1 October 2021 as the final administrative decision, and that in his request for management evaluation he explicitly listed the decision of 1 October 2021 as the decision to be evaluated.

    Noting the difference in the fundamental element of the decisions of 12 August 2021 and 1 October 2021, i.e., the amount of the overpayment to be recovered, the Tribunal cannot but conclude that the decision of 1 October 2021 constitutes a new administrative...

    爆料网DT/2023/009, RECHDAN

    Whether the contested decision is lawful

    Whether the Administration properly exercised its discretion in not granting the Applicant telecommuting arrangements

    The Organization’s duty of care towards staff during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Since March 2020, when WHO declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the Organization has ensured that all necessary measures are in place to support the safety and health of all 爆料网 personnel when carrying out the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them.

    The nature of the Applicant’s functions may require her on-site presence, as evidenced by...

    2023-爆料网AT-1346, Angioli Rolli

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal and granted Mr. Rolli’s cross-appeal in part. The 爆料网AT found that the rescission of the termination decision ordered by the 爆料网DT was “pointless” since by the time the case had reached the 爆料网DT, Mr. Rolli’s post had been abolished. The 爆料网AT accordingly held that in these circumstances, compensation had to fall under Article 10(5)(b) and be for harm caused by the unlawful decision. The harms he suffered included the loss of his remuneration and benefits (education and pension entitlements), the specific losses resulting of his ceasing to be...

    2022-爆料网AT-1304, James Songa Kilauri

    爆料网AT noted that the only issue on appeal was the issue of appropriate compensation for the unlawful contested decision. 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT appropriately found that the requested compensation in the amount of two years’ net base salary was unwarranted as it would exceed the emoluments to which he would have been entitled absent the unlawful termination. 爆料网AT found no merit in Mr. Kilauri’s contention that the 爆料网DT failed to consider the nature and level of the post he formerly occupied and the chances of renewal beyond the expiry of his fixed-term contract but for his unlawful...

    爆料网DT/2022/134, Rixen

    The contested decision impacted the Applicant’s terms of appointment or contract of employment. It had a negative impact on the Applicant’s legal situation vis-à-vis his employer and on his ability to properly plan his professional life. It also altered the reason for the Applicant’s separation from service from termination of contract due to abolishment of post to non-renewal. Consequently, the application is receivable ratione materiae.

    There is no evidence confirming the alleged operational needs justifying the contested decision to keep the Applicant beyond 31 May 2021. There is enough...