爆料网

爆料网 Charter

  • Article 1.3
  • Article 1.4
  • Article 100
  • Article 100.1
  • Article 101
  • Article 101.1
  • Article 101.2
  • Article 101.3
  • Article 103
  • Article 105
  • Article 105.2
  • Article 17
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 55
  • Article 57
  • Article 63
  • Article 76
  • Article 8
  • Article 92
  • Article 97
  • Article 98
  • Chapter VII
  • Chapter XV
  • Charter of the United Nations, Article 101
  • Preamble
    • Showing 81 - 90 of 202
    2018-爆料网AT-859, Samandarov

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the allegation that 爆料网DT usurped its discretion by failing to show due deference in substituting its own preference of sanction for that of the Secretary-General was overstated. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly balanced the competing considerations and concluded reasonably that the cumulative imposition of a written censure and the loss of two steps in grade were disproportionate to the misconduct. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT did not misdirect itself in accepting as mitigating factors the fact that Appellant had lost all his...

    2018-爆料网AT-841, Quijano-Evans et al.

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General's appeal and the staff members’ cross-appeal. 爆料网AT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that the applications were receivable because the contested decision would have an adverse impact on the staff members. With respect to the merits of the appeal, 爆料网AT noted that the salary entitlements of staff members are statutory in nature and may be unilaterally amended by the General Assembly. 爆料网AT further noted that an individual loss caused by a unilateral variation of a validly concluded contract poses no legal obstacle to the exercise of...

    2018-爆料网AT-847, Timothy

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in concluding that the Administration’s decision to terminate the staff member was unlawful since it did not fully comply with its obligations under Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) to take all reasonable and bona fides efforts to consider her for available suitable posts, as an alternative to the abolished one. 爆料网AT noted that the phrase “suitable posts” is not defined in the Staff Rules and that nothing in the language of Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) indicates that the obligation of the Administration to consider the redundant staff member for suitable posts, vacant...

    2018-爆料网AT-843, Kozul-Wright

    爆料网AT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official’s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. 爆料网AT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation’s...

    2018-爆料网AT-829, Verma

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in law or fact in dismissing the application. 爆料网AT held that the evidence had shown that the Appellant did not meet all the requirements for the post to which he had applied, as set out in the vacancy announcement, and that he was rightly placed by 爆料网RWA in tranche 2 list. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had rightly concluded that, since the Appellant was unsuitable for the post, the failure of the Administration to consider his application in priority as an internal candidate had not vitiated the outcome of the selection process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had...

    2019-爆料网AT-966, Krioutchkov

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it held that Staff Rules 4.4 and 4.5 established different recruitment regimes for professional and general service staff, clarifying that they establish different allowances and benefits regimes for local and international recruitment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law when it found that it was illegal to restrict a temporary job opening at the professional level to local recruitment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT contradicted 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence on the wide inherent discretion conferred upon the Secretary-General...

    2019-爆料网AT-944, Ross

    爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. 爆料网AT also affirmed 爆料网DT’s application of the priority consideration...

    2019-爆料网AT-921, Mindua

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not a staff member, as he was not supported by the Secretary-General in terms of Staff Regulation 4. 1 and was not subject to the Secretary-General’s authority, but rather he was elected by the General Assembly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in dismissing the application as not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly distinguished ILOAT judgment No. 3359, noting that the ILOAT’s jurisdiction ratione personae is broader than 爆料网DT’s jurisdiction, in that it may be invoked by “officials”, which includes judges. Noting that the current...

    2019-爆料网AT-914, Oglesby

    爆料网AT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, 爆料网AT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member’s spouse was not entitled to a survivor’s benefit. Nonetheless, 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-901, Latimer

    爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law in reviewing the legality of Staff Rule 4.7(a). As Staff Rule 4.7(a) was approved by the General Assembly, the Tribunals had no authority to examine whether or not it is in accord with the 爆料网 Charter or any other higher norms. Nonetheless, 爆料网AT held that Staff Rule 4.7(a) only forbids the Secretary-General “to grant an appointment” to a person who has a close family relationship but does not provide a legal basis to revoke a staff member’s appointment. Accordingly, 爆料网AT concluded that the termination of the retired staff member’s 2016 WAE...