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 101 - 110 of 1006
    2024-爆料网AT-1480, Mirjam Briel

    The 爆料网AT held that the Standing Committee of 爆料网JSPB had appropriately found Ms. Briel ineligible to receive a widow’s benefit.

    The 爆料网AT found that Ms. Briel should have submitted her appeal to the 爆料网AT using the prescribed form, accompanied by a brief explaining her grounds for appeal, particularly given that she had received clear instructions from the 爆料网AT Registry. Nonetheless, the 爆料网AT reviewed the merits of her appeal.

    The 爆料网AT found that, at the time of the late participant’s death, he had not reported Ms. Briel as his spouse or common-law spouse. Moreover, there was no evidence to...

    2024-爆料网AT-1488, Abdurrahman Turk

    The 爆料网AT held that the applicant’s reliance on Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute for his application for revision was misguided and as such, was not receivable and lacked merit. The 爆料网AT nonetheless reviewed his application for revision under the appropriate legal framework, which is in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure.

    The 爆料网AT held that other than the application being filed within one year of the 爆料网AT Judgment at issue, the application for revision did not comply with any of the statutory requirements. There was no fact discovered after the issuance...

    2024-爆料网AT-1507, Mahmoud Ahmad Ali

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT rightly identified that the standard of proof for placing the staff member on ALWOP was whether there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to believe that the staff member had committed the alleged misconduct.

    The 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s argument that his ex-wife’s withdrawal of the complaint against him in a national court should have stopped all investigations against him. The 爆料网AT noted that the national court had provided the case records to the Agency, and the Agency, following its complete assessment of the situation, can proceed with...

    2024-爆料网AT-1504, AAX

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. It further found that the e-mail identified as the contested decision was a general response from the Human Resources Partner to the staff member’s general inquiry regarding SEG, which did not address his personal situation. As such, it did not constitute an individual or final administrative decision affecting his terms of appointment under Staff Rule 11.2(a).

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2023/107, albeit for different reasons, with Judge Colgan dissenting.

    2024-爆料网AT-1506, Amjad Al-Thaher

    The 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网RWA DT’s determination of the former staff member’s chances of selection for the position at one-fourth on alternative grounds. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT appropriately considered the possibility that the Agency could have introduced additional candidates on an equivalency basis during a second review after the shortlisting phase. In particular, the 爆料网RWA DT held that, since the sufficient number of candidates for a competitive exercise was normally between three to five candidates per vacancy, it was reasonable to expect that the Agency would have brought more...

    2024-爆料网AT-1489, Ahmad Hasan Hamad

    The 爆料网AT noted that before the applicant became a staff member, he had been employed by 爆料网RWA as complementary personnel with non-staff status and was not entitled to any benefit beyond what had been established for daily-paid workers. The 爆料网AT observed that neither his daily-paid service contracts nor a sample of daily-paid service contracts applicable at the relevant time mentioned payment of any compensation upon expiration.

    The 爆料网AT found that upon each expiry of the applicant’s daily-paid service contract, it was successively renewed and he was bound by the Agency’s regulations and...

    2024-爆料网AT-1496, Mahmoud Mohamad Zeidan

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT had erred in law when it found that the applicable legal framework allowed the interview panel to conduct technical assessments of the candidates. However, the 爆料网AT held that the procedural irregularity of the panel having held a second round of interviews of a purely technical nature, would not suffice to grant the appeal because the outcome of the recruitment process would have been the same.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT had not erred with regards to the Agency’s failure to correctly apply gender parity rules. The 爆料网AT found that gender parity had not...

    2024-爆料网AT-1499, Philippe Schifferling

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

    The Appeals Tribunal held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that the Charge Letter did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision, and that as such Mr. Schifferling’s application was not receivable ratione materiae.

    The Appeals Tribunal further found that the question of whether the Dispute Tribunal erred in not joining the Secretariat as a necessary party to the application had become moot and that in any event, the interlocutory appeal was not receivable.

    2024-爆料网AT-1492, Alain Bertrand Kamdem Souop

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the staff member’s application was not receivable because he failed to request management evaluation of the contested decision within the 60-day statutory time limit. The 爆料网AT determined that, since the staff member was notified on 27 and 28 April 2022 of the rejection of his request for medical evaluation, he had 60 days from that date to submit his request for management evaluation. However, he only submitted his request to the Management Evaluation Unit on 3 November 2022, and later to the United Nations Development Programme (爆料网DP) on...

    2024-爆料网AT-1491, Djekosse Miantoloum

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the disciplinary measure imposed was lawful.

    The 爆料网AT rejected the former staff member’s argument that the decision of Doctors Without Borders (DWB) prohibiting him from collaborating with the association in the future, could not be characterized as a disciplinary measure, since it was communicated to him after he was no longer employed by the association. The 爆料网AT held that this argument was not admissible, as it had already been presented before the 爆料网DT.

    In any event, the 爆料网AT determined that the decision from DWB constituted a...