爆料网

Article 9

  • 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 - 6 of 6
    2019-爆料网AT-930, Chemingui

    As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT held that the new evidence attached to the cross-appeal by the Respondent (the Appellant on Cross-Appeal and the Applicant before 爆料网DT) was not admissible. On the receivability of the cross-appeal, 爆料网AT held that it was not receivable since the Respondent was the prevailing party at the first instance level and he does not claim to broaden the order of 爆料网DT, but just to maintain it by means of an additional argument that has already been rejected by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in its judgment, although 爆料网AT differed in its reasoning. 爆料网AT held that the...

    2010-爆料网AT-044, Solanki

    爆料网AT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. 爆料网AT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

    2016-爆料网AT-668, Onifade

    爆料网AT preliminary denied the Appellant’s motions for leave to respond to the answer to the appeal and his request for production of documents and evidence, on grounds that there were no exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT then considered the merits of the appeal. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网DT’s decision that the investigation was not ultra vires. Whilst the Special Representative of the Secretary-General did not initiate the investigation, the nature of Chief Conduct and Discipline Team duties gave him authority to refer the matter to SIU for investigation. Even if the initiation of the investigation gave...

    2017-爆料网AT-734, Witold

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT decided to strike out the Appellant’s additional submission and not to take it into consideration. 爆料网AT found no fault in the 爆料网JSPF Standing Committee’s decision which was in full accord with the 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was neither entitled to an increase in his pension benefit nor to a retroactive payment for the period of his reemployment as there is no legal basis for retroactive payment of these...

    2017-爆料网AT-718, Bagot

    爆料网AT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s cross-appeal was receivable. 爆料网AT agreed with the findings of 爆料网RWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with 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...