爆料网

Article 18.2

  • 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 - 8 of 8
    002 (NBI/2025), KC
    • Appealed
    Beyond mere expressions of surprise, the Applicant presented no argument contesting either the law or facts of the Respondent’s response to his request for production of evidence. The Tribunal found that the requested evidence was irrelevant. The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate security issues implicated in the request, especially in light of the Applicant’s bald claim that an unidentified expert required these documents to develop or support an undisclosed opinion. The broad request for security log books monitoring staff movements at the compound did not seem to be relevant to the fair...
    004 (NBI/2025), Sakule Mathe Bubega
    • Appealed
    The Tribunal directed the Respondent to submit evidence of the legitimate investigative activity that was taken in connection with this case from the date on which the Administration received the report of possible misconduct until the date of the decision to withhold the Applicant’s final entitlements and pension paperwork. In order to determine whether any delays in this case were an aberration or examples of systematic problems, the Tribunal also directed the Respondent to submit similar information for all of the 225 MONUSCO Medical Insurance Plan fraud investigations.
    2022-爆料网AT-1232, Baker Okwir

    Mr. Okwir appealed. 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir’s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the 爆料网DT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. 爆料网AT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

    2010-爆料网AT-032, Calvani

    爆料网AT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the 爆料网DT order as not receivable, finding that 爆料网DT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. 爆料网AT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

    2011-爆料网AT-121, Bertucci

    爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judge had sufficient grounds to order the production of the documents withheld by the Administration concerning the selection process that led to the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT stated the principle that 爆料网DT has the right to order the production of any document relevant for the purposes of the fair and expeditious disposal of its proceedings. If the Administration opposes 爆料网DT’s order to produce a certain document in its possession, it may, with sufficiently specific and justified reasons, request 爆料网DT to verify the confidentiality of the document in...

    2014-爆料网AT-471, Landgraf

    The Appellant requested that the 爆料网DT judgment be set aside and that the case be remanded to 爆料网DT for a hearing de novo before a different judge. 爆料网AT agreed with the Appellant’s submission that the relevant statute or rules of procedure do not prohibit an applicant from providing testimony and serving as a witness in their own case. 爆料网AT noted that, while 爆料网DT was required to administer the declaration prescribed in Article 17(3) of the 爆料网DT RoP, 爆料网DT’s failure to do so was not an error serious enough so as to affect the decision of the case. Conversely, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT’s refusal to...

    爆料网DT/2011/069, Morin

    Nature of misconduct charges: Although technically not criminal charges, a misconduct charge may carry overtones of criminal proceedings, where rights attendant to a fair trial attach. Equality of arms: equality of arms may be seen to be an indivisible element of a fair trial, requiring that a fair balance exist between parties involved in litigation. The principle warrants the assurance that each party to a dispute be able to prepare and present his or her case fully and adequately before the court.Outcome: The Tribunal found that the conditions of access proposed by the Respondent would...

    爆料网DT/2013/053, Wasserstrom

    The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not entitled to any compensation for loss of earning and benefits because the case corned the Ethics Office’s decision that the Applicant had not been retaliated against and not the circumstances regarding his separation from 爆料网DP. As for non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that it was difficult to envisage a worse case of insensitive, high-handed and arbitrary treatment in breach of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including Articles. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the failures...