爆料网

Article 15

  • Article 1.2
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 13
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18bis
  • Article 18bis.1
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 20
  • Article 20.2
  • Article 22
  • Article 23
  • Article 24
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(a)
  • Article 29(b)
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2010-爆料网AT-029, El-Khatib

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, 爆料网AT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the 爆料网AT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

    2014-爆料网AT-435, Hushiyeh

    On appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had acknowledged in a Memorandum from 6 July 2002 that he was driving after duty hours when the accident occurred. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary or other evidence to the contrary. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in fact when it found that the Appellant was not on duty at the time of the accident and did not err in law when it determined he had no legal right to compensation under MTTI No. 6. 爆料网AT further held that 爆料网RWA DT did not make an error of law in discounting the Israeli court’s evaluation of the Applicant...

    2016-爆料网AT-642, Savadogo

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. 爆料网AT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or 爆料网AT to conduct a fresh investigation. 爆料网AT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the 爆料网AT RoP and no...

    2020-爆料网AT-1003, Fairweather

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member’s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT held that in the...