爆料网

Article 2(e)

  • 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 - 5 of 5
    2023-爆料网AT-1361, AAO

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment was problematic because the 爆料网DT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The 爆料网AT observed that the 爆料网DT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the 爆料网DT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The 爆料网AT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

    2014-爆料网AT-400, Tadonki

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the issues for decision had been clearly defined by the parties’ submissions. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had failed to persuade it that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that it was correct to conclude that the Administration had acted unlawfully when it did not renew the staff member’s appointment because there was not enough evidence to support a determination that the staff member had failed to perform his functions. 爆料网AT...

    2014-爆料网AT-398, Kamara

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had nor erred in law or fact rendering its judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to persuade the Court that 爆料网DT’s conclusion of fact had rendered the decision unreasonable as required by Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the evidence clearly supported the finding of gross negligence and loss of property, as well as the existence of the misconduct. 爆料网AT held that there was no due process violation on the part of the Administration for having charged the Appellant with three accounts of misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the misconduct had been established...

    2015-爆料网AT-511, Bastet

    爆料网AT considered appeals by both the Secretary-General and Mr Bastet. 爆料网AT held that the disciplinary measure was regularly adopted by an individual properly vested with the delegated authority to make that decision and that therefore, the imposition of the disciplinary measure was valid and its rescission as ordered by 爆料网DT had to be vacated. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal from the Secretary-General, accepting the argument that Staff Rule 10. 1(c) expressly provided that the authority to impose disciplinary measures was vested in the Secretary-General or officials with delegated authority and did not...

    2021-爆料网AT-1135, Mohammad Tofazzel Hossain

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT declined Mr. Hossain’s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain’s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. 爆料网AT admitted on appeal the...