爆料网

Article 8.1

  • 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 131
    2018-爆料网AT-823, Ngoga

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s finding that the application contesting the decision to recover overpayments was not receivable ratione temporis was correct since the Appellant waited nearly two years until filing his application to the 爆料网DT, which was clearly outside the time limit. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the Appellant’s application against the decision to reject retroactive payment of dependency allowance for his adopted children was not receivable ratione materiae because the Appellant failed to request management evaluation within the time limits provided in Staff Rule 11. 2. 爆料网AT dismissed the...

    2019-爆料网AT-970, Adnan-Tolon

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT declined to receive the Appellant’s additional evidence on the basis that the Appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances, explain why the additional evidence could not have been filed before 爆料网DT, or demonstrate its relevance and materiality. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that working overtime over the years does not amount to an administrative decision, noting that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of the Administration requesting him to work overtime or of any request by him for compensation and a denial thereof. 爆料网AT held that knowledge of the...

    2019-爆料网AT-946, Tosi

    Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. 爆料网DT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...

    2020-爆料网AT-1073, Erik Kennes

    爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s position regarding the moment the Appellant knew or reasonably should have known of the content and finality of the decision and that it triggered the time limit to request management evaluation. 爆料网AT further affirmed 爆料网DT’s position that the Appellant’s request for management evaluation was time-barred. 爆料网AT, however, noted that 爆料网DT should have found the application not receivable ratione materiae, which is the case if there is no timely request for management evaluation, rather than ratione temporis. 爆料网AT further noted that this error by 爆料网DT did not adversely affect...

    2021-爆料网AT-1174, Hoyce Temu

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the 爆料网DT’s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. 爆料网AT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the 爆料网DT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the 爆料网DT Judgment, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...

    爆料网DT/2009/051, Costa

    The Dispute Tribunal may suspend or waive the deadlines for the filing of applications imposed by the Statute and Rules of Procedure, but may not suspend or waive the deadlines in the Staff Rules concerning management evaluation because this is the prerogative of the Secretary-General.The drafters of the Statute of the Dispute Tribunal intended that all applications to the Tribunal would be subject to the rules under which this Tribunal operates. Therefore, pursuant to Article 8.3 of the Statute, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend the deadlines for the filing of requests for...

    爆料网DT/2009/029, Gonzalez-Ruiz & Buscaglia

    A summary judgment was rendered because, as per art. 9 of the RoP, there was no dispute as to the material facts and judgment was restricted to matters of law. As one of the Applicants did not file an application in person (art. 8.1 (b), 3.1 and 2.1 of 爆料网DT Statute) neither designated a counsel to act on his behalf (art. 12 of 爆料网DT RoP), his application was deemed as not receivable. Furthermore, considering that an apology is beyond the remedies which may be ordered by the Tribunal in accordance with art. 10.5 of 爆料网DT Statute, the application was declared as out of the Tribunal’s mandate.

    爆料网DT/2009/026, Mezoui

    爆料网DT noted that the Applicant, having received the contested decision on 4 February 2009, did not file her application with this Tribunal until 14 July 2009, which was beyond the 90 calendar-day deadline set forth in Article 8 of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网DT noted that before it can reject an application, it must determine whether failure to meet the deadline could have resulted from erroneous information provided by the Administration. 爆料网DT held that the Applicant was not given any information that could have misled her, because, as she herself wrote, it was not until after 1 July 2009 that she...

    爆料网DT/2009/007, Rees

    爆料网DT held that the application was receivable because the time limit for management evaluation had not yet expired and management evaluation was still pending. 爆料网DT took note of the findings of the JAB Panel, which recommended suspension of action following the Applicant’s request to this end dated 22 June 2009, and of the Deputy Secretary-General’s memorandum by which such suspension was granted. 爆料网DT noted that both the Panel and the Secretary-General came to the conclusion that the questioned decision was prima facie unlawful and that the Applicant’s reassignment, if implemented, would...

    爆料网DT/2009/070, Planas

    The Tribunal highlights the necessity of management evaluation, quoting Nwuke and Caldarone. It is not enough to merely initiate the procedure. On the contrary, the result of Management evaluation has to be awaited generally, before an application may be submitted to the Tribunal. It is not within the Applicant's discretion to evade management evaluation which is considered useless. Outcome: Application was dismissed.