爆料网

Article 11.1

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 41 - 50 of 52
    2018-爆料网AT-890, Mbaigolmem

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment filed by Mr Mbaigolmem. 爆料网AT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had to prove that he had discovered a decisive fact that was unknown to both him and 爆料网AT at the time of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Mbaigolmem had failed to establish an unknown decisive fact that could warrant revision of the judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision of judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-1059, Bezziccheri

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. 爆料网AT considered Ms Bezziccheri’s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of 爆料网AT can be revised, 爆料网AT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to 爆料网AT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, 爆料网AT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

    2020-爆料网AT-1048, Ross

    The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-爆料网AT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of 爆料网HCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to 爆料网AT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

    2020-爆料网AT-1032, Rolli

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by 爆料网AT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required 爆料网AT to revise its judgment. 爆料网AT held that neither the remand order of 爆料网AT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

    2020-爆料网AT-997, Clemente

    爆料网AT considered an application by 爆料网JSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. 爆料网AT opined that, in actuality, the 爆料网JSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that 爆料网AT erred in making an award of interest, which 爆料网JSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of 爆料网AT are final and without appeal, 爆料网AT held that this attempt to...

    2020-爆料网AT-996, Oglesby

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-914 from Mr Oglesby. 爆料网AT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the 爆料网 Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT opined that it was within the combined powers of the 爆料网JSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

    2021-爆料网AT-1152, Ashraf Zaqqout

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-1055. 爆料网AT found that none of the three new facts sought to be relied on by the applicant could have changed the outcome in any decisions entered against him in the 爆料网RWA DT, and this test being one of four, all of which must exist for a judgment to be revised, Mr. Zaqqout’s application was dismissed.

    2021-爆料网AT-1131, Mohammed Sirhan

    The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the 爆料网RWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...