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 141 - 150 of 319
    2010-爆料网AT-029, El-Khatib

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and, therefore, not receivable. However, 爆料网AT noted that, even if the appeal was receivable, there did not appear to be valid grounds for contesting the decision to withdraw the offer of appointment or for requesting compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT also noted that the request for the removal of the defense brief from the file, as it contained information relating to the informal dispute resolution process, could have been taken into consideration since Article 15 of the 爆料网AT RoP provides that such information shall remain confidential and never...

    2010-爆料网AT-064, Kasmani

    爆料网AT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have 爆料网AT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. 爆料网AT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having 爆料网AT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...

    2010-爆料网AT-001, Campos

    爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. 爆料网AT also affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments rejecting the staff member’s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the 爆料网DT judges. 爆料网AT further rejected the staff member’s request that 爆料网AT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the 爆料网AT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...

    2011-爆料网AT-107, Chen

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms Chen. 爆料网AT held that the principle that everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (Article 23(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to 爆料网 staff. 爆料网AT held that budgetary considerations could not trump the requirement of equal treatment. 爆料网AT declined to grant the relief sought by Ms Chen in her cross-appeal on the basis that 爆料网DT awarded damages from the correct date. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s allegation that 爆料网DT usurped the Secretary-General’s...

    2011-爆料网AT-102, Muthuswami et al.

    The former staff members filed an application for revision of judgment 2010-爆料网AT-034. 爆料网AT held that none of the facts presented fulfilled the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was an attempt to relitigate the case. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2012-爆料网AT-223, Rawat

    爆料网AT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that 爆料网AT consider the appeal receivable and find that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat’s appointment. 爆料网AT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, 爆料网DT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-爆料网AT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. 爆料网AT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. 爆料网AT rescinded...

    2012-爆料网AT-210, Finniss

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Noting the absence of a written record, 爆料网AT held that it could not confirm if the procedure under Article 17 (Oral Evidence) of the 爆料网DT RoP was complied with, whether the witnesses made a declaration under Article 17(3) of the 爆料网DT RoP before giving their statements, or whether the witnesses were cross-examined by the opposing party under Article 17(1) of the 爆料网DT RoP. 爆料网AT set aside the 爆料网DT judgment and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a fresh hearing based on the pleadings already on record in a matter consistent with the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2013-爆料网AT-390, Wesslund

    爆料网AT considered a writ of mandamus from Ms Wesslund, who requested that 爆料网AT order 爆料网DT to accept her applications. 爆料网AT held that because it did not have inherent or original jurisdiction outside its capacity as an appellate body, it considered the motion for writ of mandamus to be an appeal against 爆料网DT Order No. 100 (NY/2013). 爆料网AT held that the appeal was received beyond the deadline for appeal. Noting that Ms Wesslund did not apply to 爆料网AT for an extension or waive of the applicable time limits, 爆料网AT held that the appeal of the Order was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the...

    2013-爆料网AT-317, El Khatib

    爆料网AT considered Mr El Khatib’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-142. 爆料网AT held that Mr El Khatib did not identify any fact unknown at the time of the impugned judgment which could justify its review. 爆料网AT held that what he actually sought was a discussion of the amount of compensation awarded to him, an option not granted by the Statute. 爆料网AT held that the petition did not meet the statutory requirements. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.