爆料网

Article 23.2

  • Article 16.1
  • Article 20
  • Article 23
  • Article 23.2
    • Showing 1 - 5 of 5
    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...

    2010-爆料网AT-030, Tabari

    爆料网AT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. 爆料网AT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari’s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

    2011-爆料网AT-107, Chen

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. 爆料网AT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to 爆料网 staff. 爆料网AT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. 爆料网AT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that 爆料网DT awarded damages from the correct date. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s allegation that 爆料网DT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

    2016-爆料网AT-615, Ejaz, Elizabeth, Cherian and Cone

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. 爆料网AT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. 爆料网AT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

    2021-爆料网AT-1139, Jihad AbduGhani Oneis, Diab El-Tabari and Walid Abdullah

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in law by not taking account of evidence implying strongly that there had been an administrative decision by 爆料网RWA not to pay allowances to those who claimed them as their entitlement, and therefore concluding wrongly that there was no evidence of an administrative decision affecting the Appellant’s rights. However, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT’s Judgment dismissing the Appellant’s claim had to be upheld on grounds of lateness of their request for management evaluation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeals and upheld the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.