爆料网

爆料网AT Statute

  • Article 1.2(c)
  • Article 10. 9
  • Article 10.1
  • Article 10.2
  • Article 10.5
  • Article 10.5(a)
  • Article 10.5(b)
  • Article 10.6
  • Article 10.8
  • Article 10.9
  • Article 11
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.1
  • Article 11.2
  • Article 11.3
  • Article 11.4
  • Article 18
  • Article 18.1
  • Article 2
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(a)
  • Article 2.1(b)
  • Article 2.1(c)
  • Article 2.1(d)
  • Article 2.1(e)
  • Article 2.10
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.2(a)
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 2.4(a)
  • Article 2.4(b)
  • Article 2.5
  • Article 2.6
  • Article 2.7
  • Article 2.8
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9
  • Article 2.9(a)
  • Article 2(b)
  • Article 2(c)
  • Article 2(e)
  • Article 24
  • Article 3.2
  • Article 4
  • Article 5
  • Article 6
  • Article 6.2
  • Article 7
  • Article 7.1
  • Article 7.1(c)
  • Article 7.2
  • Article 7.3
  • Article 7.4
  • Article 7.5
  • Article 8
  • Article 8.1
  • Article 8.1(c)
  • Article 8.1(d)(i)(b)
  • Article 8.2
  • Article 8.3
  • Article 9
  • Article 9.1
  • Article 9.1(a)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.1(b)
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.2
  • Article 9.3
  • Article 9.4
  • Article 9.5
  • Article 9(b)
    • Showing 11 - 20 of 1006
    2026-爆料网AT-1626, ABH

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that the established facts underlying the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It found that the former staff member's sustained participation in exchanges concerning the sharing of non-public information and his communications with M.R., an individual engaging publicly on matters pertaining to the Office of Investment Management (OIM), constituted unauthorized disclosure or, at minimum, participation in unauthorized sharing of non-public information.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT erred in characterizing as too vague the allegation that the...

    2026-爆料网AT-1618, Varun Singh Phogat

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member did not request an oral hearing during proceedings before the 爆料网DT and thus cannot be allowed to do so on appeal. The 爆料网DT as the trier of fact cannot be bypassed.

    The 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the former staff member’s post-separation grievances were beyond its scope of adjudication and not receivable because there was no prior and timely request for management evaluation. The sanction for non-compliance with this mandatory internal procedure is the non-receivability of the application challenging the contested decision.

    The...

    2026-爆料网AT-1617, ABF

    The 爆料网AT held that the issues on appeal were whether the 爆料网DT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in issuing the impugned interlocutory case?management orders, and whether any alleged procedural errors were effectively irremediable by a final judgment or manifestly unreasonable so as to justify interlocutory review. It recalled that appeals against interlocutory orders are receivable only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and that matters relating to evidence, procedure, and trial conduct fall within the 爆料网DT’s broad case?management discretion.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT...

    2026-爆料网AT-1621, Yaser Abu Zeid

    The 爆料网AT held that the issues on appeal were whether the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal erred in finding that the facts of misconduct were established to the clear and convincing evidence standard, whether it erred in concluding that the conduct constituted serious misconduct, and whether it erred in affirming the proportionality of the disciplinary sanction of separation from service without termination indemnity. It recalled that its role is not to conduct a de novo review, but to determine whether the first?instance tribunal committed an error of law, fact, or procedure resulting in an unreasonable...

    2026-爆料网AT-1645, Clay Shiala Nsilu

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline. It noted that since he filed his application before the 爆料网DT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment in that same language. As he received the 爆料网DT Judgment in French on 11 July 2025 and filed his appeal on 13 August 2025, the 爆料网AT held that it was filed in a timely manner.

    Nevertheless, the 爆料网AT found that the former staff member’s application before the 爆料网DT was not receivable. In this regard, the 爆料网AT first rejected his contention...

    2026-爆料网AT-1623, Dorah Likukela

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the former staff member’s application was not receivable.

    Regarding the former staff member’s claims concerning the alleged theft of her wages, the alleged lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay, and the alleged illegal withholding of her final pay, the 爆料网AT found that these claims were not receivable ratione materiae, because she failed to request management evaluation of the contested decisions within the statutory time limit.In this regard, the 爆料网AT further held that her ignorance or misunderstanding of the law...

    2025-爆料网AT-1586, Amjad Issa

    The Tribunal found that Mr. Issa’s application does not satisfy the stringent prerequisites for receivability under the 爆料网AT Statute, namely, that the decisive fact he now relies upon, that all 爆料网RWA offices in the West Bank field were closed completely, was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to himself, prior to the Judgment. This was plainly known to Mr. Issa, rendering his application non-receivable on this ground alone.

    The 爆料网AT noted that Mr. Issa does not present, or even purport to possess, evidence that he in fact had complied with 爆料网RWA’s directives to advise the Agency of his...

    2024-爆料网AT-1439-Corr.1, Egor Ovcharenko

    The Appeals Tribunal found that the proportional adjustment of workload standards for self-revision services was a matter that fell squarely within the Administration’s discretionary authority. The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Administration followed all proper procedures when taking and implementing the contested decision, and the 爆料网DT properly determined that there was no requirement for staff management consultations at the departmental or office level in relation to a specific appealable administrative decision.

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No...

    2024-爆料网AT-1502-Corr.1, AAZ

    The 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the 爆料网DT would have impacted the decision of the case.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the 爆料网DT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

    2024-爆料网AT-1494, Zafarkhon Sheralov

    The 爆料网AT first considered the staff member’s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

    The 爆料网AT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the 爆料网AT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the 爆料网DT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...