爆料网

Article 18.1

  • 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 - 10 of 30
    002 (NBI/2024), Francis Fultang
    • Appealed
    1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang 爆料网DT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang 爆料网AT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings. 3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...
    2025-爆料网AT-1522, Sanjaya Bahel

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in suggesting that it was the former staff member’s burden to provide evidence to support his assertion that his request for review had been pending before the Dispute Tribunal since July 2009 and to produce a record of his case having been transferred to it from the JDC in July 2009.

    The 爆料网AT further held that the Administration’s response, that his claim was closed due to his failure to pursue it for over 12 years, was neither an administrative decision, nor was it the Administration’s prerogative to make regarding the judicial proceeding. The Administration...

    2025-爆料网AT-1551, Leonid Dolgopolov

     

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member knew all the relevant facts and was sufficiently made aware and properly notified of the contested decision by at least 18 May 2023 for the purpose of filing a timely request for management evaluation. However, the staff member did not file his request for management evaluation until 16 September 2023, which was beyond the 60 day time limit.

    The 爆料网AT observed that the subject line of the e-mail exchanges in August 2023 between the Administration and the staff member, were requests “to clarify” the basis of an administrative decision that had been taken...

    2025-爆料网AT-1539, Desire Hatungimana

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

    It found that the 爆料网DT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V’s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the 爆料网AT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

    爆料网DT/2024/113, Sellami

    A staff member’s duty to abide by managerial instruction lies at the heart of employment relationships and the Tribunals are expected to accord a measure of deference to managerial authority, including in setting performance standards (see, Applicant 2020-爆料网AT-1030, para. 34).

    The Applicant has not demonstrated any procedural or substantive breach of his rights. In the absence of any evidence that the performance standards applied by 爆料网ICEF are manifestly unfair and irrational, the Tribunal cannot substitute its decision for that of the decision-maker to overturn the contested decision.

    Accordin...

    2023-爆料网AT-1405, Yonas Negasa

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General.

    The 爆料网AT held that the administration of the written security affairs exam in the present case had not met the minimum standards detailed in Chhikara. The 爆料网AT noted that the Administration had first administered the test, analyzed the results, and only then had decided that certain questions should be eliminated from consideration. The 爆料网AT found that the unannounced and ex post deletion of questions from the written examination, after it had already been marked, on its very face violated the obligation to administer the test in a...

    2023-爆料网AT-1376, Samuel Bwalya

    Mr. Bwalya appealed.

    The 爆料网AT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a 爆料网DP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from 爆料网DP’s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

    2022-爆料网AT-1291, Korkut Yavuz

    爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Administration’s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz’s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. 爆料网AT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

    爆料网DT/2022/063, Rabbat

    Scope of judicial review and the contested decision The Applicant described the contested decision as a failure to implement “measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect personnel from prohibited conduct through preventive measures”. As remedies, the Applicant sought damages for moral harm and emotional distress resulting from the Administration’s breach of its duty to ensure a harmonious work environment. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks to contest the Administration’s failure to take appropriate measures to promote a harmonious work environment and protect him from...

    2011-爆料网AT-151, Kaddoura

    As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hear the proffered evidence from witnesses for the Appellant, as the testimonies related to facts that were not specifically in dispute and could not have refuted the uncontested fact that the decision had been confirmed. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the confirmation decision was lawful and in awarding her compensation only in the amount of the Special Post Allowance she would have received. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err by failing to order the Appellant’s...