爆料网

Article 8.1(c)

  • 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 41 - 50 of 167
    2011-爆料网AT-182, O'Neill

    爆料网AT concurred with 爆料网DT that the Appellant neither appealed the administrative decision not to select him for the post, nor challenged the selection process or the JAB’s conclusion, but rather he discussed the release of a Confidential Letter which occurred after the selection process. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the appeal was not receivable with respect to the non-promotion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that 爆料网DT committed errors warranting the reversal of its determination that his challenge to the decision to release the Confidential Letter was not...

    2011-爆料网AT-153, Ahmed

    爆料网AT affirmed the decision of 爆料网DT that the Appellant’s adverse performance appraisals constituted a proper basis for the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in limiting the scope of his application to the non-renewal. 爆料网AT concurred with the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal which held that unless the Administration made an express promise creating an expectancy of renewal, or unless it abused its discretion, or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds in not extending the appointment, the non-renewal of a staff member’s fixed-term appointment...

    2013-爆料网AT-349, Servas

    爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT and its conclusion that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT noted that a request for management evaluation must be submitted prior to bringing an application before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT further noted that, even if the Management Evaluation Unit (MEU) had failed to resolve the Appellant’s complaints about the contested decision, she still had the opportunity to file a timely application with 爆料网DT for judicial review after she receive the response from the MEU but had chosen not to do so. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and jurisdiction in addressing...

    2013-爆料网AT-311, Pirnea

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the reasons proffered by the Administration for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment were valid, namely that he could no longer perform his functions in Somalia since his life was at risk there. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Administration had hidden reasons for not renewing Mr Pirnea’s appointment was based solely on speculation and that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law and fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it concluded that there was no valid reason for the non-renewal. 爆料网AT noted that...

    2013-爆料网AT-300, Wamalala

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that as the Secretary-General had clearly established the 爆料网DT’s lack of jurisdiction, 爆料网AT, therefore, made an exception to the general rule that only appeals against final decisions are receivable. 爆料网AT held that, as the issue of jurisdiction did not go directly to the merits of the case, there was a need to receive the appeal at that time rather than to wait for the issue to be raised in an appeal against the final judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was receivable. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s finding that there was one...

    2013-爆料网AT-299, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the appeal as 爆料网DT correctly concluded that applications to 爆料网DT were only receivable if the applicant had previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation and that management evaluation was a mandatory first step. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2013-爆料网AT-293, Gehr

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that applications to the 爆料网DT, be they from serving or former staff members (such as the Appellant), are only receivable if the applicant has previously submitted the contested administrative decision for management evaluation. 爆料网AT found no merit in the Appellant’s interpretation of the relevant provisions that, as a former staff member, he was exempted from the requirement for management evaluation. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s consideration that in the event of any ambiguity or contradiction between the 爆料网DT Statute and the Staff Rules, the former must...

    2015-爆料网AT-600, James

    爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s finding that the staff member’s claim that the Organisation was negligent in carrying out his unsuccessful cataract surgery, owed him compensation of USD 2 million, and failed to separate him in a timely manner on health grounds were not receivable since he had failed to request management evaluation under Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Staff Rule 11.2(a). 爆料网AT rejected his contention that the impugned decisions were based on the advice of technical bodies, namely the ABCC, the Medical Services Division, and the Medical Board and that he was therefore not required...

    2015-爆料网AT-566, Terragnolo

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. 爆料网AT found no errors of fact or law by 爆料网DT in awarding costs against the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

    2015-爆料网AT-558, Kouadio

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. 爆料网AT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that 爆料网DT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. 爆料网AT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment and dismissed Mr...