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 151 - 160 of 319
    2013-爆料网AT-393, Applicant

    爆料网AT considered the Applicant’s application for revision of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-209. 爆料网AT held that the request filed by the Applicant constituted a disguised way to criticise the judgment or to expose grounds to disagree with it, a recourse against a final judgment that is not provided for in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the issuance of another judgment during the same session as which the Applicant’s case was decided did not constitute a new fact, but rather law and that there was no possibility for a revision based on law. 爆料网AT held that the application was submitted almost one year...

    2013-爆料网AT-392, Maghari

    爆料网AT considered Mr Maghari’s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-039. 爆料网AT held that the application was receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT held that the grounds filed did not fall within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and did not constitute a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, known to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Maghari merely disagreed with the 爆料网AT decision and sought to reargue his appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-爆料网AT-356, Massah

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that the alleged error in the factual findings of 爆料网DT did not constitute circumstances that warranted revision, because none of them would result in the exclusion of the main reasons stated by 爆料网AT in vacating the 爆料网DT judgment and affirming Mr Massah’s separation from service for serious misconduct. 爆料网AT held that the application was inadmissible since its goal was to litigate the case de novo as a result of counsel not agreeing with the final judgment, an option which was not provided to the parties by the applicable law...

    2013-爆料网AT-376, Williams

    Noting the Secretary-General’s contention that administrative review by ICAO is the equivalent of management evaluation under Article 7(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and Article 7(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as Article 8(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute, 爆料网AT agreed that Article 7(3) prohibited 爆料网AT from waiving the deadline by which the Appellant was required to seek administrative review. 爆料网AT held that it did not have jurisdiction or competence to address the merits of the substantive claims of the Appellant since AJAB did not consider the merits of those claims as the neutral first instance...

    2013-爆料网AT-366, Abu Ghali

    On the issue of whether it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant had possession of, and traded in, Tramal, 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT’s credibility determinations, analysis and conclusions and accepted its factual findings. On the issue of whether the established facts showed misconduct, 爆料网AT held that misconduct based on underlying criminal acts does not depend upon the staff member being convicted of a crime in a national court. 爆料网AT recalled the jurisprudence of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal that different onuses and burdens of proof arise under...

    2013-爆料网AT-353, Obdeijn

    爆料网AT considered Mr Obdeijn’s application for revision of judgment in respect of judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-201. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s submissions were irrelevant as they did not meet the requirements set out in the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn’s failure to submit evidence of alleged economic loss during the proceedings before both Tribunals did not constitute a newly discovered decisive fact warranting a revision of judgment. 爆料网AT held that Mr Obdeijn could not rely on 爆料网AT’s inherent jurisdiction to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by the 爆料网AT Statute from a rule based on...

    2013-爆料网AT-359, Ademagic et al. and McIlwraith

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal Ademagic et al. 爆料网AT held that judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the 爆料网DT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; 爆料网AT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

    2013-爆料网AT-358, Longone

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and an appeal by Mr. Longone. 爆料网AT held that judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-357 applied mutatis mutandis and adopted paragraphs 33-82 of that judgment, summarised as follows: 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that the authority to grant permanent appointments to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) staff members was vested in the ICTY Registrar and, accordingly, vacated the 爆料网DT decision on that basis and upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal on that issue; 爆料网AT held that each candidate for permanent appointment...

    2013-爆料网AT-338, Dzuverovic

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms Dzuverovic and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On consideration of Ms Dzuverovic’s appeal, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law in concluding that the application was not receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to seek management evaluation of the contested decision and made no written request to extend the deadline. On consideration of the Secretary-General’s request in its cross-appeal to order the redaction of the paragraphs containing recommendations by 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT held that the approach of 爆料网DT did not merit the remedy...