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 161 - 170 of 319
    2013-爆料网AT-352, Cohen

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-131 by Ms Cohen. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds for revision set forth by Ms Cohen met the requirements of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute or Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds provided were new facts, but rather they were new legal arguments and an attempt by Ms Cohen to re-litigate her case and complain about 爆料网AT reducing the compensation awarded. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-爆料网AT-391, Elasoud

    爆料网AT considered Mr Elasoud’s application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-173. 爆料网AT held that the grounds set out by Mr Elasoud did not come within Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute, and he did not specify any fact of which he and 爆料网AT were not aware when his appeal was considered. 爆料网AT held that a review of the application showed that Mr Elasoud merely disagreed with the decision of 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2013-爆料网AT-320, Masri

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of both judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-098 (underlying judgment) and judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-163 (judgment on application for revision). 爆料网AT held that the application for revision of the underlying judgment was not receivable, as it was time-barred for not having been made within one year of the underlying judgment. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网AT Statute and its Rules of Procedure did not provide for the revision of a judgment on revision and that to allow such an application would defeat the purpose of the one-year time limit. 爆料网AT held that the application for...

    2013-爆料网AT-322, Shkurtaj

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation by Mr Shkurtaj on the issue of interest. 爆料网AT referred to Warren (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-059) and Mmata (judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-092) for the holding that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement became due. 爆料网AT held that the interest payable was at the US Prime Rate and that an extra five per cent should be added to the US Prime Rate if the judgment was not executed within 60 days of its issuance. 爆料网AT held that the date from which interest on the compensation was to be paid at the US Prime Rate was...

    2013-爆料网AT-319, Laeijendecker

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-158. 爆料网AT held that there was no new fact such as to meet the criteria set out in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that Mr Laeijendecker sought to re-argue or reopen issues. 爆料网AT held that insofar as Mr Laeijendecker sought interpretation of the impugned judgment, paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 were clear on their face and had to be read in conjunction with paragraphs 27 and 28, and paragraphs 32-35. On the allegation of bias, 爆料网AT held that Mr Laeijendecker’s submissions amounted to no more than completely...

    2013-爆料网AT-315, Abbasi

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision and an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2011-爆料网AT-112, both filed by Ms Abbasi. On the application for revision, 爆料网AT held that it constituted a disguised way to criticise the impugned judgment or to disagree with it, noting that the rules did not allow the use of an application for revision for such a goal or to modify, complete or improve a 爆料网AT judgment. 爆料网AT held that, even if the “cheating” in the written test had been qualified as previously unknown and not due to Ms Abbasi’s negligence, it would not have had a decisive impact on...

    2013-爆料网AT-282, Lauritzen

    On the alleged procedural error of the 爆料网DT not allowing an oral examination of witnesses, 爆料网AT held that it was well within the competence of 爆料网DT to manage its cases as it saw fit and that the Appellant had not demonstrated how the procedure affected or violated her due process rights; 爆料网AT dismissed this ground of appeal. 爆料网AT held, affirming the finding of 爆料网DT, that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision to remove her from her post in Budapest constituted a disguised disciplinary measure. 爆料网AT found no merit in the ground of appeal that 爆料网DT failed to consider that 爆料网HCR...

    2014-爆料网AT-494, Sutherland et al

    爆料网AT considered motions seeking execution of four judgments (judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-357, judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-359, judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-358, and judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-360). 爆料网AT denied these motions, noting that execution did occur in each of the cases. 爆料网AT also noted that payment of the moral damages had been effected and a new conversion process had been completed, thus, none of the applications merited an order for execution pursuant to Article 11(4) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 27 of the 爆料网AT RoP. With respect to Ademagic et al. and Mr Longone’s motion to hold decision letters in...

    2014-爆料网AT-493, Das

    爆料网AT considered Ms Das’s application for Interpretation of judgment with respect to the award of interest on the compensatory damages and any remaining termination benefits and entitlements. 爆料网AT noted that its earlier jurisprudence held that interest was to be paid at the US Prime rate from the date on which the entitlement becomes due, which in this case is the date of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT noted that it had merely affirmed the award of compensatory damages and termination benefits by 爆料网DT and had not initiated it. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to the Secretary-General’s claim that...

    2014-爆料网AT-492, Gakumba

    爆料网AT considered Mr Gakumba’s application for revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-387. 爆料网AT held that it did not fulfil the statutory requirements and was seemingly disguised as an attempt to re-open the case. 爆料网AT held that it would be manifestly unreasonable to submit that the 爆料网DP Conversion Policy issued in 2010 could not be argued by the staff member in 2012 before the 爆料网DT, or in 2013 before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that no valid reason had been provided about the untimely submission of the application for revision. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.