爆料网

Article 9.5

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 11 - 19 of 19
    2014-爆料网AT-410, Igbinedion

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not act lawfully in issuing an order in direct contravention of the established 爆料网AT jurisprudence. However, 爆料网AT also held that parties before 爆料网DT must obey its binding decisions and that a decision by 爆料网DT remained legally valid until such time as 爆料网AT vacated it. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s refusal to comply with 爆料网DT’s order was vexatious. 爆料网AT reiterated its jurisprudence that the absence of compliance may merit contempt proceedings. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal in part.

    Accountability Referral: The 爆料网AT...

    2017-爆料网AT-716, Cohen

    爆料网AT considered an application to 爆料网AT contesting the Conciliation Committee’s decision to recommend compensation of USD 35,000. 爆料网AT dismissed the motion of Ms Cohen seeking reconsideration of a 爆料网AT Order granting the ICJ Registrar additional time to file his answer. On Ms Cohen’s application for permission to reply to the ICJ Registrar’s answer on the grounds that neither the ICJ Registrar nor the Conciliation Committee addressed the testimony on record in their decisions, 爆料网AT considered that exceptional circumstances existed and granted the motion. 爆料网AT held that, absent a successful...

    2019-爆料网AT-907, Korduru

    爆料网AT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. 爆料网AT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
    Accountability referral: The 爆料网AT...

    2020-爆料网AT-1020, Dibs

    爆料网AT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-798 by Mr. Dibs. 爆料网AT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered 爆料网RWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. 爆料网AT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

    2020-爆料网AT-1014, Chhikara

    爆料网AT held that the reason upon which 爆料网DT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. 爆料网AT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by 爆料网DT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

    2021-爆料网AT-1185, null 爆料网RWA

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. 爆料网AT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

    2021-爆料网AT-1172, Ravi Karkara

    The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the 爆料网DT’s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the 爆料网DT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The 爆料网AT further found that the 爆料网DT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara’s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the 爆料网DT’s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the 爆料网AT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The 爆料网AT also held that the sanction of...

    2021-爆料网AT-1137, Appellant

    爆料网AT found the 爆料网DT correctly reviewed and rescinded the contested decision because of the procedural irregularities encountered during the investigation. But in addition to the procedural issues, 爆料网AT also noted there were other significant errors. The Tribunal found that the panel erred when it sought to determine the Medical Officer’s intent during the breast examination. The panel had previously concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the actions of the Medical Officer during the breast examination were sexual in nature. Referring to Section 1.3 of ST/SGB/2008/5, the...

    2021-爆料网AT-1118, Boubacar Dieng

    爆料网AT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, 爆料网AT disagreed with the staff member that the 爆料网DT...