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 281 - 290 of 319
    2019-爆料网AT-902, Nouinou

    The Secretary-General appealed 爆料网DT’s finding that the contested decisions to abolish Ms Nouinou’s post, the consequent decision not to renew her two-year fixed-term appointment, and the refusal to re-assign her for two months under a zero-dollar incumbency, where she had been selected for a short-term position, were unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made a grave error in law in terms of the basic legal position, which defined the subject of the litigation before it and the appeal. 爆料网AT held that there was no administrative decision to terminate Ms Nouinou’s contract prior to its expiration and...

    2019-爆料网AT-896, Harris

    The 爆料网DT judgment was appealed by both parties. On the lawfulness of the decision to withhold salary, 爆料网AT held that Mr Harris had not identified any grounds for his appeal and failed to demonstrate that 爆料网DT had committed any error of fact or law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT held that Mr Harris’ case was fully and fairly considered and could find no error of law or fact in its decisions. On the cancellation of health insurance, 爆料网AT found no reason to differ from the 爆料网DT finding that Mr Harris did not make the appropriate payments to reinstate his health insurance coverage, thus...

    2020-爆料网AT-1068, Porras

    爆料网AT held that as allegations of improper motive, bias, or prejudice as reasons for the unlawfulness of the non-renewal were not raised before 爆料网DT for its consideration, 爆料网AT should not consider them. 爆料网AT held that the exceptional circumstances that were required to allow additional pleadings to be considered, were not present. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in not renewing the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment. 爆料网AT held that, in situations of a staff member being declared persona non grata by a host country, it was the duty of...

    2020-爆料网AT-1061, Abu Osba

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by 爆料网RWA DT as required under Art 2(1) 爆料网AT Statute, 爆料网AT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that 爆料网RWA DT’s exercise...

    2020-爆料网AT-1049, Kisia

    爆料网AT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. 爆料网AT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. 爆料网AT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before 爆料网DT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant’s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video...

    2020-爆料网AT-1059, Bezziccheri

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-948 by Ms Bezziccheri. 爆料网AT considered Ms Bezziccheri’s claim that ST/AI/2019/1 was unknown to her and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was issued. Noting the three elements that an applicant for revision must establish cumulatively before a final judgment of 爆料网AT can be revised, 爆料网AT held that the fact that ST/AI/2019/1 was known to 爆料网AT when it issued its judgment (as it had been referred to therein) was sufficient in and of itself to fail the cumulative test. Further, 爆料网AT noted that ST/AI/2019/1 was not determinative of Ms...

    2020-爆料网AT-1048, Ross

    The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-爆料网AT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of 爆料网HCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to 爆料网AT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...

    2020-爆料网AT-1037, Yabowork

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration’s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. 爆料网AT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration’s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-1032, Rolli

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by 爆料网AT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required 爆料网AT to revise its judgment. 爆料网AT held that neither the remand order of 爆料网AT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1020, Dibs

    爆料网AT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-798 by Mr. Dibs. 爆料网AT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered 爆料网RWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. 爆料网AT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.