爆料网

Article 18.5

  • 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 15
    2023-爆料网AT-1388, Yassir Ibrahim Ali Haroun

    The 爆料网AT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2022/124 and that the 爆料网DT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The 爆料网AT nevertheless observed that the 爆料网DT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the 爆料网AT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT rightfully refused to...

    2023-爆料网AT-1331, Osvaldo Di Mario

    爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellant’s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellant’s supervisors as witnesses. 爆料网AT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the 爆料网HCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

    爆料网DT/2022/069, Hossain

    The Tribunal held that the Applicant had proven that the process of restructuring of the Programme Management Unit leading to the abolition of his post and hence the non-renewal of his contract was arbitrary, capricious, motivated by prejudice, procedurally irregular and an error in law.By its failure to follow the Regulations and Rules for the restructuring and abolition of the Finance Specialist position, the Tribunal agreed with the Applicant that he was singled out among the three international staff members, to pave way for national staff without a legitimate objective criterion, and in...

    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...

    2012-爆料网AT-234, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found that the alignment policy constituted an organisational measure aimed at simplifying administrative procedures in relation to staff appointments at 爆料网ODC. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that, as a result of the Secretary-General’s broad discretion in relation to decisions on internal management, the issuance of the policy by a “Message of the Day” was subject to limited review by the Tribunal. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the application of the alignment policy to his case was motivated by improper motives and...

    2013-爆料网AT-281, Pacheco

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not identify any evidence that contradicted the findings of 爆料网DT regarding the abolition of her post. 爆料网AT recalled the broad discretion of 爆料网DT to determine the admissibility of evidence and the discretion of 爆料网DT to decide whether the presence of witnesses is required and to limit oral evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT erred in declining to hear the proffered evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at its hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise to tell the...

    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...

    2015-爆料网AT-597, Wu

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网DT erred in procedure in the following ways: firstly, by denying his request to call a specific witness; secondly, by making allegedly conclusory remarks at the oral hearing; and, thirdly, by refusing to admit further evidence on discrimination and retaliation committed against him in 2014. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit any error of procedure so as to affect the outcome of the present case. 爆料网AT noted that case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify, remain within the discretion of 爆料网DT and do...

    2015-爆料网AT-527, Dhanjee

    爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s claim that the Hiring Manager more than minimally demonstrated that she gave the Appellant’s candidature full and fair consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly applied the standard of judicial review to determine whether the Hiring Manager’s decision that the Appellant was not among the most qualified for the post was reasonable. 爆料网AT held there was no reason to reverse the findings of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant merely repeated the arguments he made before 爆料网DT and expressed his disagreement with the findings of the Hiring Manager. 爆料网AT held that...

    2020-爆料网AT-1072, Nadeau

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...