爆料网

Article 13.3

  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(a)
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 13
  • Article 13.1
  • Article 13.2
  • Article 13.3
  • Article 13.4
  • Article 14
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 14.4
  • Article 15
  • Article 15.1
  • Article 15.13
  • Article 15.2
  • Article 15.3
  • Article 15.4
  • Article 15.5
  • Article 15.6
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 16.2
  • Article 16.3
  • Article 16.6
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 17.2
  • Article 17.3
  • Article 17.5
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 17.6
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 18.4
  • Article 18.5
  • Article 19
  • Article 19.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 20
  • Article 21
  • Article 22
  • Article 24
  • Article 24.1
  • Article 24.2
  • Article 24.3
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 26.2
  • Article 27
  • Article 27.1
  • Article 27.2
  • Article 27.2(c)
  • Article 28
  • Article 28.2
  • Article 29
  • Article 29.1
  • Article 29.2
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 32
  • Article 32.2
  • Article 34
  • Article 34(a)
  • Article 34(b)
  • Article 35
  • Article 36
  • Article 36.1
  • Article 4.7
  • Article 5.2
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.1(b)
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7.6
  • Article 7(a)
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(c)
  • Article 8.2(e)
  • Article 8.2(g)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 9
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    2023-爆料网AT-1389, Maryam H. Wathanafa

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had not erred in fact when it had not considered separation on retirement, mentioned in the separation notice, to be the reason for the contested decision; the mention of retirement had no import on the staff member’s separation. The 爆料网AT was of the view that the letter informing her of the expiry of her fixed-term appointment was in line with the abolition of the post she encumbered.

    The 爆料网AT noted that judicial review in the context of suspension of action is different from the review conducted by the Tribunal...

    2012-爆料网AT-255, Igunda

    爆料网AT considered an appeal against 爆料网DT Orders No. 082 (NBI/2011) and No. 083 (NBI/2011) by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the main motivation for ordering the suspension of action in Order No. 82 was to grant access to justice to the staff member and that the Order could be sustained because a certain degree of discretion had to be awarded to 爆料网DT to consider and resolve urgent matters such as interim measures. On Order No. 83, which extended the suspension of action until 12 August 2011, in breach of the five working days restrictive period to render the decision, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT...

    2012-爆料网AT-230, Nwuke

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against 爆料网DT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute had been met. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-爆料网AT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

    爆料网DT/2011/133, Dougherty

    The Applicant claimed that: the decision was discriminatory and the decision-maker sought retribution for, inter alia, the Applicant’s failure to choose the decision-maker’s favoured candidate in a selection process; the matter was urgent due to the impending expiration of the Applicant’s contract; and the decision would cause irreparable harm because the Applicant would lose his job and current livelihood. The Respondent contended that the application should be rejected outright because the Applicant did not pursue his claim with due diligence. The Respondent further argued that the Applicant...