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 181 - 190 of 319
    2015-爆料网AT-604, Ocokoru

    The issue for determination by 爆料网AT was whether the relevant date for the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal ran from the date on which the ALS received the 爆料网DT judgment in its capacity as counsel of record for the Secretary-General before 爆料网DT or the date on which the judgment was received by the OLA, the Secretary-General’s counsel of record before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that in the absence of any published 爆料网DT rule or practice direction which decreed that transmission of 爆料网DT judgments be made to OLA, it was not permissible for the Secretary-General to seek to rely on the date when the...

    2015-爆料网AT-591, Gakumba

    爆料网AT had before it an appeal of judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/006. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to seek to leave to postpone consideration of the Appellant’s appeal due to lack of legal representation. 爆料网AT agreed with the Secretary-General’s claim that the Motion filed by the Appellant was an additional supplemental pleading addressing the merits of his claims. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances justifying the filing of an additional pleading or good cause to postpone consideration of his appeal and his request was denied. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT...

    2015-爆料网AT-596, Musleh

    爆料网AT noted that, despite its Registry’s request for the Appellant to file an appeal brief, the Appellant failed to do so. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was given the opportunity to improve his performance through the further extension of his appointment for an additional six months, but his performance had still not improved. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the conclusion of 爆料网RWA DT that both the initial decision to extend the Appellant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision not to confirm his appointment were in compliance with his letter of appointment and 爆料网RWA’s regulatory...

    2015-爆料网AT-595, Survo

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Survo and an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in the procedure, including in its findings regarding receivability. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law in relation to the matters raised by Mr Survo. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred on a question of fact such as to render the decision of 爆料网DT manifestly unreasonable. On the Secretary-General’s appeal of the Special Post Allowance (SPA) issue, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that Mr Survo had properly sought management...

    2015-爆料网AT-592, Matadi et al

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT accepted the Secretary-General’s position that 爆料网MIL staff members were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed restructuring from the beginning of the process, and the 爆料网MIL National Staff Association representative participated in the discussion on the Guidelines for the comparative review process. 爆料网AT held that it would not speculate on the chances that each of the posts might not have been abolished if there had been consultations with the National Staff Association. 爆料网AT held that the change in the composition of the...

    2015-爆料网AT-583, Lee

    On the Appellant’s claim that 爆料网DT erred in failing to hold an oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was in possession of the respective applications and documentation which it considered to be sufficient to make the relevant decisions to facilitate the fair and expeditious disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that the Appellant did not contest an administrative decision and therefore, there was no legal basis to support the contention that she had a right to be informed of the identity of the decision-makers, noting that she had been informed on several occasions that it was...

    2015-爆料网AT-585, Likuyani

    爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-297. 爆料网AT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2015-爆料网AT-581, Selim

    爆料网AT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

    2015-爆料网AT-580, Kalil

    爆料网AT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (爆料网RWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2014/027. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the 爆料网RWA DT judgment and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to submit new evidence to 爆料网AT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that it was for 爆料网RWA DT to consider that it...

    2015-爆料网AT-579, Achkar

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. 爆料网AT inferred that the Appellant claimed 爆料网RWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the legal conclusion of 爆料网DT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.