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 21 - 30 of 96
    2014-爆料网AT-488, Chocobar

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 233, which contended that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in issuing an order as there was no matter for adjudication after Ms Chocobar withdrew her application. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT, in making its Order in the absence of a case to adjudicate, lacked jurisdiction and exceeded its competence to a significant degree. 爆料网AT noted that Article 36 of the 爆料网DT RoP did not provide a legal basis for the 爆料网DT Order, as there was no case before 爆料网DT to which Article 36 could apply. 爆料网AT further noted that Article 36 does not allow 爆料网DT to...

    2014-爆料网AT-475, Gehr

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General contended that the Ethics Office’s determination that no credible prima facie case of retaliation had been established was not an administrative decision subject to judicial review under Article 2 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT noted that the key characteristic of an administrative decision subject to judicial review is that the decision must produce direct legal consequences affecting a staff member’s terms or conditions of appointment. 爆料网AT found that, in this case, the recommendation of the Ethics Office had no legal...

    2014-爆料网AT-405, Obino

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the Appellant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed and to meet his statutory burden of proving non-compliance with the terms of his appointment or his contract of employment. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2018-爆料网AT-871, Reda

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that he should be considered a 爆料网 staff member because he worked with 爆料网OPS for over three years. 爆料网AT concluded that 爆料网DT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    爆料网DT/2009/021, Campos

    爆料网DT preliminarily rejected the Applicant’s requests for recusal, holding that there were no longer any grounds for ruling on those requests since the 爆料网DT President previously rejected those requests. Concerning the first application, 爆料网DT held that the Applicant did not establish the illegality of the election of JC and that his application for the election to be declared null and void must be rejected. With regard to the Applicant’s request that all decisions taken by the Internal Justice Council be rescinded, 爆料网DT held that it is clear from General Assembly Resolution 62/228 of 22 December...

    爆料网DT/2009/078, Koh

    爆料网DP had an obligation to its staff to make it clear that the time frame for making applications for ad hoc posts might be less than the two weeks period mandated for QUARRY positions. The respondent, by virtue of the settlement agreement, was obliged to comply, amongst other things, with the Guidelines for the Recruitment and Selection of 爆料网DP Staff, especially since they dealt with the subject of the agreement, namely support for the applicant’s attempts to obtain another post. Where there was a particular duty to inform imposed by the settlement agreement and the failure to inform...

    爆料网DT/2009/052, Rosca

    Transferred JAB cases are governed by the 爆料网DT Statute. Decisions of the Administrative Tribunal on exceptional circumstances are wrong and should not be followed. Ignorance of the law held not relevant. Where the 爆料网DT Statute is ambiguous, interpretation should preserve rights and uphold justice so far as the language permits. Outcome: The appeal was submitted within time and is receivable.

    爆料网DT/2010/118, Cohen

    The Tribunal rescinds the decision to summarily dismiss the Applicant and Orders: the reinstatement of the Applicant; that the Applicant be paid her salaries and entitlements from the date of her summary dismissal to the date of this judgment with interest at 8%; that the Applicant be compensated for the breach of her right to due process at the rate of two months net base salary; that compensation be fixed, should the Secretary-General decide in the interest of the Administration not to perform the obligation to reinstate the Applicant, at two years’ net base salary at the rate in effect on...

    爆料网DT/2010/014, Umpleby

    Paragraph 19 of the APPC Procedural Regulations of June 2006 states that only staff members who have served for a minimum of one year in their post are eligible to apply for vacancies. The Applicant claims that the contested decision dated 29 February 2008 to appoint 12 staff members to vacant posts affects her rights since these vacant posts were not advertised. However, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision, at the time the 12 staff members were appointed, the Applicant was not eligible to any of these posts as she had been appointed only in September 2007. Therefore, without it...

    爆料网DT/2010/013, Pellet

    Paragraph 19 of the APPC Procedural Regulations of June 2006 states that only staff members who have served for a minimum of one year in their post are eligible to apply for vacancies.The Applicant claims that the contested decision dated 29 February 2008 to appoint 12 staff members to vacant posts affects his rights since these vacant posts were not advertised. However, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision, at the time the 12 staff members were appointed, the Applicant was not eligible to any of these posts as he had been appointed only in September 2007. Therefore, without it...