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 101 - 110 of 319
    2023-爆料网AT-1349, Said Ali Tamalawi

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

    The 爆料网AT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

    The 爆料网AT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the 爆料网RWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2022/022.

    2023-爆料网AT-1371, Enrico Muratore Aprosio

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

    The 爆料网AT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the 爆料网DT but which it did not accept.

    The 爆料网AT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...

    2022-爆料网AT-1193, Carolina Larriera

    Ms. Larriera sought revision of the 爆料网AT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the 爆料网JSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a “stable union” with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

    爆料网AT observed that Ms. Larriera’s application for revision was untimely. In addition, 爆料网AT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

    2023-爆料网AT-1352, Samer Nayif Mahmud Mohammad

    The 爆料网AT held that the Applicant’s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the 爆料网RWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

    2023-爆料网AT-1360, Moner Ahmed Nasser

    The 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT exercised its discretion to proceed by summary judgment, without examining the merits of the case, lawfully and appropriately. It found that in this way, the 爆料网RWA DT acted not only in accordance with the principles of judicial economy and efficiency, but also in the interest of expeditious disposal of the case.

    The 爆料网AT found that the Appellant received the contested administrative decision on 3 November 2009 and filed his application with the 爆料网RWA DT on 12 August 2022. Therefore, it was obvious that he filed his application more than three years after his...

    2022-爆料网AT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

    2022-爆料网AT-1287, Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

    Mr. Hassan appealed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

    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...

    2022-爆料网AT-1284, Ihsanullah Khan

    The 爆料网AT first addressed the staff member’s request for an oral hearing. The staff member wished to present medical evidence to the Tribunal to prove his medical incapacitation. The 爆料网AT rejected this argument, noting that the appeal was a review of the 爆料网DT judgment based on the evidence presented to the 爆料网DT, and the staff member had not applied to present new evidence. The 爆料网AT also rejected the arguments that the staff member could use the oral hearing to explain various policies or to advance an amicable resolution with the Administration. The request for the oral hearing was denied. ...

    2022-爆料网AT-1275, Hussam Abd AlRhman Al Dirawi

    The 爆料网AT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the 爆料网AT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the 爆料网AT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The 爆料网AT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.