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 221 - 230 of 319
    2016-爆料网AT-621, Nielsen

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that an oral hearing was neither necessary nor would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Regarding the Appellant’s motion, 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion. 爆料网AT held that the motion was essentially an attempt by the Appellant to supplement arguments already made in her appeal submissions. 爆料网AT denied the motion. Regarding the appeal’s submissions, 爆料网AT held that that 爆料网DT had erred in law in rejecting the application on the basis that the Appellant’s...

    2016-爆料网AT-620, Seyfollahzadeh

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that the evidence showed that 爆料网DT had correctly found that the administrative decision denying ASHI/MIP to the Appellant was communicated to her in an e-mail of 1 May 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the e-mail of 27 May 2014 “did not refer to any new fact or information” and was “a mere confirmation of the earlier and unambiguous decision of 1 May 2014”. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not erred in law or fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when...

    2016-爆料网AT-616, Tiwathia

    爆料网AT held that pursuant to Article 30 爆料网AT RoP and considering the medical condition of Appellant’s counsel, it was in the interests of justice to grant the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her comments on the Secretary-General’s motion to supplement his answer. 爆料网AT accepted the Appellant’s comments on the Secretary-General’s motion as timely filed. 爆料网AT denied the Secretary-General’s motion for leave to supplement his answer since his additional pleadings would not advance or assist with the disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had very thoroughly considered the...

    2016-爆料网AT-614, Roberts

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. 爆料网AT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...

    2017-爆料网AT-809, Mbaa

    爆料网AT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before 爆料网DT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. 爆料网AT held that failing...

    2017-爆料网AT-808, Likukela

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied her motion to supply additional filings. 爆料网AT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-610, Rahman

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal, considering it defective. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant had not complied with Staff Rule 111.3, which prescribes that the staff member is required to appeal to the JAB within thirty days. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that the application was not receivable did not present any errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

    2017-爆料网AT-804, Fitsum

    爆料网AT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-800, King

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. 爆料网AT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute and was therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-797, Benamar

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by 爆料网DT (by audio conference) as verified by 爆料网AT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist 爆料网AT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, 爆料网AT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...