爆料网

Article 2

  • Article 1
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.3
  • Article 10.4
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.7
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 105
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.2(c)
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 11.5
  • Article 11.6
  • Article 12
  • Article 12.1
  • Article 12.2
  • Article 12.3
  • Article 12.4
  • Article 12.5
  • Article 15.7
  • Article 18.2
  • Article 18.3
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.7(b)
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 3
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 3.1(a)
  • Article 3.1(b)
  • Article 3.1(c)
  • Article 32
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 4.5
  • Article 4.9
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.2(e)
  • Article 7.2(h)
  • Article 7.2(i)
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 7(b)
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(a)
  • Article 8.1(b)
  • Article 8.1(b)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)–(iv)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(a)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(d)(ii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iii)
  • Article 8.1(d)(iv)
  • Article 8.1(i)
  • Article 8.1(i)(b)
  • Article 8.1(ii)
  • Article 8.1(ii)(c)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.2(d)(i)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.3(a)
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.5
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 8(a)
  • Article 8(c)
  • Article 8(d)(i)
  • Article 8(d)(ii)
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 95
    2024-爆料网AT-1488, Abdurrahman Turk

    The 爆料网AT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The 爆料网AT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure.

    The 爆料网AT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the 爆料网AT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

    2024-爆料网AT-1511, Naima ABDELLAOUI

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the 爆料网DT correctly held that it was within the SRO's discretion to make comments on Ms. Abdellaoui’s performance, that the SRO's disputed comments were reasonable and balanced by other comments that provided a positive perspective supporting the overall rating, and that as such they did not detract from the overall satisfactory appraisal. Accordingly, the Appeals Tribunal concurred with the 爆料网DT’s determination that the challenged performance evaluation was not an “administrative decision” and agreed that the application was therefore not receivable ratione...

    2024-爆料网AT-1433, Palash Kanti Das

    The 爆料网AT noted that the essence of the administrative decision had been that the staff member was not entitled to cashed-up unused annual leave from a second appointment taken up within 12 months of relinquishing a first appointment after which such leave had been commutated.

    The 爆料网AT observed that the staff member’s request for management evaluation referred to the Administration’s alleged “continued failure” to compensate him the commutation of annual leave. The 爆料网AT found that the reference reinforced a conclusion that it had been the consistent decision conveyed to him over several months...

    爆料网DT/2024/019, Bedi

    The Applicant’s Counsel’s email of 12 June 2023 did not reset the time limit for allowing the Applicant to contest all of her supervisor’s comments in her PER, nor was it capable of suspending the time limit, given that the Applicant’s deadline for contesting all of her supervisor’s comments expired before the discussion of 12 June 2023. And as was submitted, it was a proposal in the context of inter partes discussion that did not involve the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Since the Applicant got the relief which she sought regarding the one aspect of the PER which she subjected to management...

    2022-爆料网AT-1200, Elizabeth Dettori

    The crucial question on appeal was whether the 爆料网DT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of 爆料网ICEF. The 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网DT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal’s discretion to reject the applicant’s request for referral. The 爆料网DT’s legal approach was correct. The 爆料网DT decided not to refer the ED of 爆料网ICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant’s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

    爆料网DT/2023/075, Naidoo

    The documents on file, and in particular the notice of dismissal, show that the Applicant was employed by a private company. Other than the Applicant’s unsupported statement in his personal details form when filing his submissions that his Office of employment was “ITC”, there is no evidence on record showing that he has any contractual relationship with the United Nations within the meaning of art. 3 of the Tribunal’s Statute. As such, the Applicant has no locus standi before this Tribunal.

    Moreover, while the Applicant is contesting a disciplinary measure, it was imposed neither by the...

    2023-爆料网AT-1336, Felix Ross

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that the application was not receivable ratione personae and ratione materiae. The 爆料网AT held that the refusal to investigate his complaint constituted an appealable administrative decision and the application was thus receivable ratione materiae. Furthermore, given that in this case the purported abuse was alleged to have been the improper rationale for the separation from service of Mr. Ross, as a former staff member, it was sufficiently connected to his employment to confer jurisdiction ratione personae. Turning...

    2022-爆料网AT-1300, Marius Mihail Russo-Got

    Mr. Russo-Got appealed. The 爆料网AT held that the evidence incontrovertibly established that Mr. Russo-Got had failed to challenge any blacklisting decision in his request for management evaluation. Moreover, while the application contained references to several posts for which he had applied and had not been selected, he did not request management evaluation of any selection decision nor did he appeal any particular selection decision in his application to the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT accordingly had not erred in finding that the claims in the application regarding the alleged...

    爆料网DT/2022/088, Dragnea

    The Notice and its placement in the Applicant’s personnel file Noting that the decision at issue is a written reprimand imposed to address a staff member’s unsatisfactory conduct following an investigation of an altercation, the Tribunal considers that the decision at issue constitutes an administrative measure under sec. 2.1(d) of ST/AI/2017/1 (Unsatisfactory conduct, investigations and the disciplinary process). The fact that a reprimand is not a disciplinary measure “does not mean that a reprimand does not have legal consequences, which are to the detriment of its addressee, especially...

    爆料网DT/2022/068, Turk

    The Tribunal held that the two applications filed concerned the same subject-matter and the same cause of action between the same parties. There was in substance one administrative decision refusing to renew a fixed-term appointment and the first application was lis pendens when the second application was made. The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had acknowledged the same in his motion to merge the two cases and orally during a case management discussion held on 6 July 2022. The Tribunal determined that there was no case for merger and that the application was not receivable under the...