爆料网

Article 8

  • 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 113
    2019-爆料网AT-959, Wesslund

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that there had been no new administrative decision (capable of resetting the deadlines), but merely a reiteration of the previously communicated original decision. 爆料网AT held that, with respect to the original decision, the Applicant did not file a request to 爆料网DT to suspend or extend the deadlines for filing her application to 爆料网DT, nor did she claim exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limits. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2019-爆料网AT-941, Dieng

    爆料网AT recalled its jurisprudence that where a response to a management evaluation request is not received, a staff member has 90 days from when the response is due to file an application to 爆料网DT. If a response is received after the expiration of that 90-day time limit, the receipt of the response does not reset the clock for filing an application with 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that, since the MEU’s response was received after the expiration of the 90-day period, it did not reset the clock for the staff member to file an application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT therefore initially made no error of law in...

    2020-爆料网AT-1064, Kerby

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s claim that the basis for the non-renewal decision was his unsuccessful application for a newly created post for which he had applied. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence of the link between the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment and his non-selection for the other post and considered that the timeline of events supported this. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in its finding that the non-renewal decision was a separate matter from the then-ongoing selection exercise. On the Appellant’s claim that the successive renewals of his appointment created an...

    爆料网DT/2009/079, Abubakr

    Outcome: The application for an extension of time to file an answer sets out in detail the reasons for the filing of an answer, and therefore the judge considered it as an application in terms of article 19 to file further papers. The judge held that in the current circumstances, receiving an additional submission that clarifies issues of fact and law may prevent unnecessary litigation, and assist the court in determining the questions before it in a fair and expeditious manner, and in doing justice to the parties. The judge granted the applicant leave to file an answer to the reply.

    爆料网DT/2009/028, Crichlow

    The applicant’s supervisor should have recused himself from the Management Review Group (MRG) that reviewed the performance reports to avoid conflict of interest. However, this procedural irregularity was mitigated by the subsequent report of the Rebuttal Panel. Outcome: Respondent to pay the applicant the equivalent of one-month net base salary for suffering and stress.

    爆料网DT/2011/182, Seddik Ben Omar

    Outcome: The Applicant’s claim relating to the non-renewal of contract was not receivable (time-barred) and his claim for reimbursement of salary was rejected for lack of evidence. The Respondent was ordered to remove the note from the Applicant’s file and pay the Applicant six months’ net base salary for the breach of due process rights and the effect of the note on his career.

    爆料网DT/2011/160, Douaji

    The Tribunal found that the Administration had fulfilled its obligation, stressing that the results in the tests indicated that the Applicant was less qualified for the posts than the other candidates. Receivability ratione materiae: Although the contested decision was made after the Applicant had ceased to be a staff member, it is directly linked to her separation and corresponds to the criteria set in the relevant jurisprudence of an “administrative decision” subject to appeal. Priority consideration: A promise of priority consideration must be understood as giving priority only over other...

    爆料网DT/2011/006, Kunanayakam

    The Tribunal raises on its own motion the question of the receivability ratione materiae, namely whether the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision. On the merits, it finds that the OIOS decision is lawful. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass judgment on an application, including whether the contested decision is an...

    爆料网DT/2011/005, Comerford-Verzuu

    The Tribunal found that the OIOS decision was an appealable administrative decision but that the application was time-barred. Force of JAB conclusions and recommendations: The Tribunal is not bound by the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Appeals Board, which is only a consultative body. Tribunal’s obligation to raise on its own motion issues related to its competence: Before ruling on the legality of a decision, the Tribunal must examine on its own motion—that is, even if the issue was not raised by the parties—whether it is competent, pursuant to its Statute, to hear and pass...

    爆料网DT/2012/187, Zhouk

    The 爆料网DT found that the Applicant’s contract was not terminated but, instead, it was not renewed after its date of expiration. As termination indemnity was payable to staff members upon termination of their appointment and not in cases of non-renewal, the Applicant was not entitled to such payment. With respect to the interest on reimbursement for unused annual leave days, the 爆料网DT found that, while that reimbursement amount was held by the Organization pending completion of the Applicant’s separation paperwork, it accrued interest which is payable to the Applicant. With respect to the payment...