爆料网

Article 8.2

  • 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 - 8 of 8
    2023-爆料网AT-1387, Mazin Ismail Sadieh

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member did not cite any provision of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and did not indicate whether any errors by the 爆料网RWA DT in his case related to its jurisdiction, the procedure, a question of law or a question of fact. The 爆料网AT held that the appeal was defective and consequently not receivable.

    The 爆料网AT, nevertheless, reiterated its jurisprudence on some of the issues raised, and agreed with the way the 爆料网RWA DT had determined the amount of in-lieu compensation. The 爆料网AT also agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT’s...

    2022-爆料网AT-1278, Langa Dorji

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

    The 爆料网AT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the 爆料网DT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2021...

    2010-爆料网AT-072, Samardzic

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had only presented arguments challenging the Administration’s behaviour and the decision to terminate her contract with 爆料网MIK. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate how 爆料网DT, by judging the application not receivable and dismissing it on this ground, could have exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise it, made an error of law or procedure, or made an error of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly dismissed the application as not receivable since the request for administrative review had...

    2010-爆料网AT-071, Kovacevic

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to explain how 爆料网DT exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or competence, erred on a question of law or procedure, or erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT recalled that the 爆料网DT Statute precluded 爆料网DT from suspending or waiving the deadlines for management evaluation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was therefore correct in concluding that the application was not receivable and to reject it on that basis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the 爆料网DT Judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-045, Tsoneva

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2015-爆料网AT-596, Musleh

    爆料网AT noted that, despite its Registry’s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the conclusion of 爆料网RWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and 爆料网RWA’s regulatory...

    2017-爆料网AT-793, Muhsen

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of 爆料网AT under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute by not asserting that 爆料网DT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the 爆料网AT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

    2018-爆料网AT-837, Isteti

    爆料网AT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, 爆料网AT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.