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 91 - 100 of 319
    2023-爆料网AT-1380, Said Hassan Awad

    The 爆料网AT found that the relief sought in the application concerned an issue not previously raised before the 爆料网DT or the 爆料网AT, being the recovery of an amount already paid as an admissible expense on a sliding scale.

    The 爆料网AT held that there was nothing in the meaning or scope of the prior Judgment that was unclear or ambiguous, the terms of the order were clear. The 爆料网AT noted there was no need to interpret the prior Judgment to clarify its meaning, nor were there reasonable doubts about what constituted the 爆料网AT’s decision or the reasons for it.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that there was also...

    2023-爆料网AT-1379, Leopold Camille Yodjeu Ntemde

    The 爆料网AT considered three appeals by the applicant.

    The 爆料网AT found that the impugned Order was an interlocutory order and was obviously beyond the competence of the 爆料网AT.

    The 爆料网AT held that the applicant had not submitted documents to prove being a United Nations staff member and that he had no legal standing before the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT noted that there was no evidence of an offer of appointment having been issued to him for either post. Second, he failed to complete the pre-recruitment formalities for both posts. Third, he failed to confirm, within a reasonable time, his interest and...

    2023-爆料网AT-1376, Samuel Bwalya

    Mr. Bwalya appealed.

    The 爆料网AT found that Mr. Bwalya had not demonstrated that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that he had committed misconduct by instructing a 爆料网DP staff member to forge a backdated Memorandum of Understanding between the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and the private firm Digata and to make a misrepresentation in a second document, intentionally acting to avoid or deviate from 爆料网DP’s Financial Regulations, Rules and Procedures through the creation of these documents, and demonstrating favouritism in the award of a...

    2022-爆料网AT-1237, Ade Mamonyane Beatrice Lekoetje

    The 爆料网AT reviewed the submission of the Secretary-General that Ms. Lekoetje had already repaid the amounts due to the Organization when she separated from service. The 爆料网AT acknowledged that Ms. Lekoetje agreed with the Secretary-General’s position, and confirmed that USD 20,987.91 had already been deducted from her final entitlements.

    Accordingly, the 爆料网AT accepted this position, and interpreted Judgment No. 2022-爆料网AT-1227 as requiring a payment by the Organization to Ms. Lekoetje of a sum equal to one year’s net base salary, but without any further deductions.

    2022-爆料网AT-1236, Marius Mihail Russo-Got

    The decisive fact relied on by the Secretary-General to justify a revision of the 爆料网AT judgment is said to be that Mr. Russo-Got inserted false information in his candidature regarding his alleged experience with NATO. The Secretary-General submits that he first became aware of this fact formally when it was made known to 爆料网OPS after the issuance of the 爆料网AT judgment.

    爆料网AT held that the facts advanced by the Secretary-General, namely the allegedly false information Mr. Russo-Got had inserted in his candidature, could not be decisive of the Secretary-General’s case and enable him to now...

    2023-爆料网AT-1365, Polycarp Ambe-Niba

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the participant in the Fund.

    The 爆料网AT found that the facts suggest that the participant’s withdrawal settlement funds were paid into a bank account which had not been opened by him. At the same time, there were unanswered questions as to how the participant had bank statements and cancelled cheques from this account if he had not opened it. In addition, given the mismatch between the participant’s name and the name of the holder of the bank account, there was no explanation as to why the wire transfer had been allowed to proceed and had not been rejected.

    The...

    2022-爆料网AT-1267, AAD

    The Appeals Tribunal rejected AAD's request for an oral hearing because she provided no persuasive reasons in support of her request.

    爆料网AT held that the Dispute Tribunal erred in determining whether the established facts qualify as misconduct and whether the disciplinary sanctions were proportionate. In its Judgment, the Dispute Tribunal also erred by substituting its determination of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for that of the Administration and, as such, the 爆料网AT concluded that the 爆料网DT Judgment must be vacated. AAD said her actions did not amount to misconduct and sought a...

    2022-爆料网AT-1254, Francoise Xavier Nsabimana

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT held that the Joint Appeals Board (JAB) had provided a decision as required by Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute and therefore 爆料网AT had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Further, 爆料网AT held that an oral hearing would not assist with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure and therefore denied the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the JAB’s decision affirming the contested decision of wrongdoing following the Appellant’s failure to report to work and holding of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1252, Alejandro Izurieta Canova

    Oral hearing: Mr. Izurieta Canova applied in terms of Article 18(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the 爆料网AT for an oral hearing to be held in this case. As this is a straightforward matter, not attended by any factual or legal complexity, 爆料网AT did not consider that a hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. For that reason, the application for an oral hearing was refused.

    The question on appeal was whether the impugned recruitment cancellation decision by the Secretary-General of 爆料网CTAD was a lawful and reasonable exercise of discretion?

    The motive for the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1276, Ahmad Shuaib Payenda

    The 爆料网AT held that the decisive fact which the staff member maintains is sufficient for the revision is a letter that was known to him at the time of his initial application to the 爆料网DT. The 爆料网AT found that the reasons for not presenting it were not persuasive.

    The 爆料网AT noted that even if it were to consider the letter known only at the time of the issuance of the previous 爆料网AT Judgment, the application for revision had not been filed on time.

    The 爆料网AT was of the view that the staff member’s application for revision constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case and that was...