爆料网

Article 7

  • Article 1.2
  • Article 10
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 13
  • Article 15
  • Article 16
  • Article 16.1
  • Article 17
  • Article 17.1
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 18bis
  • Article 18bis.1
  • Article 19
  • Article 2
  • Article 20
  • Article 20.2
  • Article 22
  • Article 23
  • Article 24
  • Article 25
  • Article 26
  • Article 27
  • Article 29
  • Article 29(a)
  • Article 29(b)
  • Article 3.1
  • Article 30
  • Article 31
  • Article 31.1
  • Article 4.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(a)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.2(b)
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 8.4
  • Article 8.6
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.4
    • Showing 1 - 4 of 4
    2010-爆料网AT-046, Vangelova

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how 爆料网DT had erred on questions of...

    2014-爆料网AT-437, Charles

    爆料网AT considered two appeals by the staff member of 爆料网DT Order Nos. 109 and 110. 爆料网AT held that the appeals were receivable because they were addressed against judicial decisions which disposed the cases before 爆料网DT. Finding that the two appeals raised the same legal issues, 爆料网AT consolidated them in the interest of judicial economy and consistency. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General’s observations about the non-receivability of the appeals. 爆料网AT held, however, that the motions for reinstatement were in fact non-receivable ab initio. 爆料网AT held that there was no statutory...

    2018-爆料网AT-886, Rehman

    爆料网AT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

    2020-爆料网AT-998, Barud

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 爆料网AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 爆料网AT on her application for a suspension of action. 爆料网AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...