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 291 - 300 of 319
    2020-爆料网AT-1040, Robinson

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law, and followed binding 爆料网AT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant’s testimony. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before 爆料网DT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

    2020-爆料网AT-1012, Heftberger

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...

    2020-爆料网AT-1009, El Shaer

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, 爆料网AT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, 爆料网AT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant’s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

    2020-爆料网AT-1005, Barri

    爆料网AT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before 爆料网DT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman’s Office is not sufficient in this regard. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

    2020-爆料网AT-1003, Fairweather

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member’s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT held that in the...

    2020-爆料网AT-998, Barud

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 087 by Ms Barud. 爆料网AT dismissed her motion to admit additional documents related to the substantive issue of justification for the non-renewal of her contract, due to their lack of relevance to the matter for decision by 爆料网AT on her application for a suspension of action. 爆料网AT noted that there was no reason why these documents could not be used by Ms Barud for the substantive matter, which was, at that time, before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the appeal failed on the grounds that Ms Barud did not apply for a suspension within the statutory time limit. In...

    2020-爆料网AT-997, Clemente

    爆料网AT considered an application by 爆料网JSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. 爆料网AT opined that, in actuality, the 爆料网JSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that 爆料网AT erred in making an award of interest, which 爆料网JSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of 爆料网AT are final and without appeal, 爆料网AT held that this attempt to...

    2020-爆料网AT-996, Oglesby

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-914 from Mr Oglesby. 爆料网AT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the 爆料网 Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT opined that it was within the combined powers of the 爆料网JSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

    2020-爆料网AT-994, Rodriguez

    爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the filing. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT calculation of the three-time periods of participation in the contributory health insurance plan was not correct. However, 爆料网AT held that even the correct calculation did not result in the required 10 years of participation, but only 9 years, 10 months, and 14 days. Turning to consider the period of 11 May to 30 June 2009, 爆料网AT held that a staff member who had expressly conceded in her application that a...

    2020-爆料网AT-1000, Ross

    爆料网AT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the 爆料网HCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...