爆料网

Article 2.1(a)

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 1 - 10 of 20
    2024-爆料网AT-1472, Alain Bertrand Kamdem Souop

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly identified 爆料网DP as the respondent in the present case because it was 爆料网DP that administered the staff member’s position and was therefore his employer. The 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s application was premature because he filed it before receiving the management evaluation response, or at least before the expiration of the delay for receiving that response. The 爆料网AT also concluded that the management evaluation response did not constitute the contested administrative decision.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/036...

    2024-爆料网AT-1465, Sabrije Hoxha

    The 爆料网AT noted that the reclassification request was made by 爆料网IFIL and not by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the 爆料网DT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

    2024-爆料网AT-1419, Nicole Wynn

    The 爆料网AT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

    The 爆料网AT observed, however, that the 爆料网DT had accepted the staff member’s averment...

    爆料网DT/2024/010, Castelli

    The Tribunal held that the decision to change a staff member’s reporting lines is not a reviewable administrative decision under art. 2(1)(a) of the Dispute Tribunal's Statute. The Tribunal, further, established that the contested decision did not produce direct adverse legal consequences to the Applicant’s employment contract. The Applicant continued to perform his functions at the P-4 level. The only change was that he reported to different persons. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as not receivable.

    爆料网DT/2023/120, Reilly

    Although the complaint against the former High Commissioner was made under ST/SGB/2008/5, its investigation and the contested decision were undertaken under ST/SGB/2019/8 and ST/AI/2017/1, in keeping with sec. 8.3 of ST/SGB/2019/8.

    The aspect of the application whose receivability the Respondent objected to relates to the way the Applicant’s complaints of abuse of authority, which were laid under ST/SGB/2008/5 and ST/SGB/2019/8, were investigated. This fact brings that aspect of the application into the ambit of Nwuke 2010-爆料网AT-099. Consequently, the totality of the application is receivable...

    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-1386, Didzis Melbiksis

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, finding that that the issues were well-defined and required no further development through an oral hearing.

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s application for review of the response to his request for management evaluation of his non-selection was not receivable ratione materiae as it did not produce direct legal consequences for him and was, therefore, not a reviewable administrative decision.

    The 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant was informed of the outcome of his request for a management evaluation regarding his non-selection...

    爆料网DT/2022/097, Applicant

    The alleged lack of decision

    The Tribunal noted that if a claim is submitted timely, the Administration opens the case under the framework of Appendix D, which remains open as compensation may be awarded any time after the original incident.

    The Tribunal referred to art. 2 entitled “Principles of award” of the pre-2017 Appendix D, applicable at the time the claim was submitted, and found that for a compensation to be paid or a benefit to be granted under Appendix D, a staff member must make a specific request such as the reimbursement of medical expenses or the payment of compensation for...