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 251 - 260 of 319
    2018-爆料网AT-893, Elzarov

    爆料网AT held that there was no evidence that the Secretary-General acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or irregular manner. 爆料网AT held that accounting for factors such as 爆料网AMID’s scorecard with respect to gender targets and the selected candidate’s proficiency in Arabic did not amount to discrimination and that it was in the Secretary-General’s discretion to do so. 爆料网AT held that no evidence had been presented to it by the Appellant to support the contention that his application was not given full and fair consideration. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was unable to show through clear and...

    2018-爆料网AT-889, Sall

    爆料网AT considered the appeal of the Appellant and the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing, noting that it would not have added any further value or clarification of the factual and legal issues. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General's cross-appeal was receivable, according to Article 9(4) of the RoP. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in holding that the disciplinary investigation was flawed by procedural irregularities. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the disciplinary decision was unlawful and, accordingly, that there could neither...

    2018-爆料网AT-888, Al Saleh

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and claims for moral damages and reinstatement. 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal have already been clearly defined by the parties and did not find that an oral hearing would “assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. ” To that end, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT found no fault with 爆料网RWA DT’s conclusion that it was highly probable that the Appellant had a leadership role in the armed clashes of 18 June 2015. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence to suggest...

    2018-爆料网AT-886, Rehman

    爆料网AT considered the receivability of the appeal, whether there was a procedural irregularity, and whether the Appellant was entitled to moral damages. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was receivable because it was filed in a timely fashion, according to Articles 7 and 29 of the RoP. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in law in finding that the Administration failed to properly notify the Appellant of her non-selection because she knew about her non-selection early enough to timely challenge the decision. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT erred in law and exceeded its competence in awarding the Appellant compensation as...

    2018-爆料网AT-879, Nimer

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

    2018-爆料网AT-877, Atome

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that neither the 爆料网AT Statute nor the 爆料网AT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. 爆料网AT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

    2018-爆料网AT-863, Afawubo

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. 爆料网AT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. 爆料网AT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which notes that...

    2018-爆料网AT-871, Reda

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that he should be considered a 爆料网 staff member because he worked with 爆料网OPS for over three years. 爆料网AT concluded that 爆料网DT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2018-爆料网AT-870, Cherneva

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held, noting that the Appellant appeared to be restating the same claims she made before 爆料网DT, that she did not identify any grounds for her appeal nor demonstrate that 爆料网DT committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the case, without errors of law or fact. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2018-爆料网AT-860, Sirhan

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General’s appeal was not time-barred and was, therefore, receivable. 爆料网AT found that no request for compensation for loss of earnings (salary) had been made. Accordingly, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not have jurisdiction to award compensation for loss of earnings. 爆料网AT held that any financial loss appears to be generated as the main cause and directly by the Director of 爆料网RWA Affairs, Lebanon’s (DUA/L) decision to cancel the secondment and that this decision was found to be lawful by the 爆料网RWA DT and that...