爆料网

爆料网AT RoP

  • 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 - 10 of 319
    2026-爆料网AT-1646, Alexander Phillip Kiselinchev

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s challenge to Staff Rule 3.3(b) –specifically, the distinction drawn between internal and external candidates with respect to step determination – in force at the time of his selection and whose reestablishment was ordered by the General Assembly, could not be subject to judicial review, as it would be tantamount to testing the substantive content of a resolution against higher normative values, a question that fell outside the remit of the 爆料网AT or the 爆料网DT.

    The 爆料网AT further found that, since the staff member was selected for the position on 17 May 2024, af...

    2026-爆料网AT-1643, Ondrej Flekal

    The 爆料网AT found that Mr. Flekal, by consenting to the referral of the harassment claim on 3 March 2024, for managerial action, had essentially waived the right to pursue a remedy before the Tribunals for the lack of an investigation into his complaints of harassment, including bullying. The 爆料网AT noted that under the relevant technical instruction of the Department of Internal Oversight Services, bullying is not a separate category of misconduct, it is considered a kind of harassment.

    The 爆料网AT noted that Mr. Flekal had also waived his “abuse of power” claim because it was not pled in his...

    2026-爆料网AT-1642, Ondrej Flekal

    The 爆料网AT noted that the decision to place Mr. Flekal on an OTI process is only an intermediate step in the performance management process and has had no direct impact or adverse consequence on his terms of appointment or the contract of employment and therefore is not an administrative decision subject to judicial review.

    The 爆料网AT found that Mr. Flekal was separated for medical reasons, declared incapacitated and awarded a disability pension. He was not separated from the Agency due to non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment. Therefore, Mr. Flekal’s challenge of the 29 August 2023 decision...

    2026-爆料网AT-1641, ABN

    Although the Secretary-General was not a party to the impugned Order, the 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had a direct and cognizable interest in an appeal which considers whether the 爆料网DT is entitled to determine whether his legal representative should be disbarred from appearing in future cases and unrelated cases before the 爆料网DT. If the 爆料网DT is empowered to order as much, it raises a significant risk of harm to the Secretary-General’s authority to appoint staff members to perform legal functions, allocate its legal resources, and hold staff members accountable in accordance with the...

    2026-爆料网AT-1640, Fekadu Kebede, Secretary-General of the United Nations

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT did not err in its framing of the scope of Mr. Kebede’s application, and that his claim of systemic retaliation was not properly before the 爆料网DT. Mr. Kebede only contested the non-selection decision both in his request for management evaluation and application to the 爆料网DT.

    The 爆料网DT agreed with the Secretary-General that there was no evidence of material falsehood or misrepresentation by the Administration to the 爆料网DT relating to Mr. Kebede’s rating during the interview for the post. The 爆料网AT noted that the “Partially Satisfactory” rating was an assessment of how Mr...

    2026-爆料网AT-1620, Margaret Mary Fogarty

    The 爆料网AT found that the neutral first instance process established by the IMO, i.e., the SAB, was properly constituted and met the requirements of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute. The 爆料网AT rejected the argument that the SAB lacked neutrality. The 爆料网AT also found that the SAB produced a sufficient written record of its Decision.

    The 爆料网AT found that the SAB acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and competence when it reviewed the decision of the Secretary-General on the recommendation of the ABCC. The SAB had close regard to the fact that the ABCC reached its determination on the medical...

    2026-爆料网AT-1638, Khaleel Odat

    The 爆料网AT held that any dissatisfaction with the meaning of a judgment should be raised in an appeal of the substantive judgment. Mr. Odat did not appeal the underlying judgment, Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2025/001.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT’s subsequent judgment on his application for interpretation was not a fresh judgment within the scope of Article 2 of the Appeals Tribunal Statute, and thus Mr. Odat’s appeal was not receivable.

    2026-爆料网AT-1618, Varun Singh Phogat

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the 爆料网DT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The 爆料网DT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

    The 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the former staff member’s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

    The...

    2026-爆料网AT-1621, Yaser Abu Zeid

    The 爆料网AT held that the issues on appeal were whether the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

    2026-爆料网AT-1622, Gwendolyn Linnea Roeske

    The 爆料网AT held that the issues on appeal were whether the 爆料网DT erred in finding the application not receivable for failure to request management evaluation within the mandatory 60?day time limit, whether it erred in identifying the date of notification of the contested administrative decision, and whether any findings on mootness or alleged due process violations affected the outcome. It recalled that its role on appeal is limited to determining whether the 爆料网DT committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable decision.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly identified...