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 311 - 319 of 319
    2021-爆料网AT-1134, Anis Basil AlMousa

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of the Judgment on the merits and a cross-appeal from the Commissioner-General on the receivability finding. 爆料网AT held that the cross-appeal was receivable, however 爆料网AT dismissed it in light of the Commissioner-General’s request that his cross-appeal not be examined should the appeal be dismissed and secondly, because 爆料网AT did not detect any error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s order which found that the application was receivable. On the merits of the appeal, 爆料网AT held that Mr. AlMousa failed to establish any error in the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment, although his appeal undoubtedly...

    2021-爆料网AT-1131, Mohammed Sirhan

    The staff member submits that the “decisive fact” which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the 爆料网RWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a “decisive fact” that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...

    2021-爆料网AT-1129, Applicant

    爆料网AT granted the application for correction. The Tribunal stated that the misidentification of the superior was an accidental error and was factually incorrect. The Tribunal, however, added that this error had little or no bearing on the outcome of the case. Regarding the request for further explanation on the Judgment, 爆料网AT dismissed the request finding that the Judgment is comprehensible and that this was a mere attempt by the staff member to criticize the Judgment.

    2021-爆料网AT-1080, Mukeba

    爆料网AT held the staff member’s appeal of the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective as it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT ruled that the appellant had failed to explain why the dismissal of his application by the 爆料网DT was erroneous. Additionally, 爆料网AT also held that it found no error in the practice of the 爆料网DT to dismiss an application for want of prosecution when there is sufficient reason to assume that the applicant is no longer interested in the litigation, based on Article 19 (Case management) and Article 36 (Procedural matters not...

    2021-爆料网AT-1128, Diane Fairweather

    爆料网AT denied both applications. Regarding the application for interpretation, the Tribunal held that the Majority Judgment was clear and unambiguous in its meaning, leaving no confusion or reasonable doubt about its conclusions or reasons. The Tribunal found that it was a disguised way by the staff member to criticize or disagree with the Judgment. Regarding the application for revision, 爆料网AT explained that the staff member did not identify a decisive fact that was unknown at the time of the Judgment. Instead, the staff member referred to events that occurred subsequent to the Judgment. As such...

    2021-爆料网AT-1114, Gudrun Fosse

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-1008. 爆料网AT considered Ms. Fosse’s claim that SCBD/爆料网EP is an organisational unit within the Secretariat, and as such, 爆料网AT purportedly erred when it deemed her transfer to that unit in effect caused her to relinquish her lien on the Chief of OSS post, which is located within the Secretariat. However, the Tribunal reasoned Ms. Fosse’s application was inter alia rejected by the 爆料网DT because she had not submitted her claim for constructive dismissal for management evaluation. Therefore, in the absence of this jurisdictional...

    2021-爆料网AT-1076, Haidar

    爆料网AT considered both appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Hussein Haidar. 爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in concluding that the facts, on which the disciplinary measure was based, had been established by clear and convincing evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the established facts legally amounted to serious misconduct. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case when considering one of the statements. 爆料网AT found no error in 爆料网DT’s finding that the measure of...