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 111 - 120 of 1006
    2024-爆料网AT-1481, Asmaa Abdullah Nassir Al-Timimi

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member did not meet the burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective, instead merely arguing that the decision was not fair. On the contrary, the 爆料网AT found that in not renewing her fixed-term appointment, the Administration acted lawfully and fairly.

    The 爆料网AT emphasized that the Administration’s decision was part of a genuine restructuring which involved, among other measures, reprioritizing existing resources through reassignment, redeployment, and reclassification of staff, including the redeployment of the former staff member’s position from...

    2024-爆料网AT-1487, Mubashara Iram

    The 爆料网AT held that the application for revision had no merit. The 爆料网AT considered that since all the evidence submitted by the applicant as new had always been in her possession and she had never mentioned them or made any effort to have them produced during the judicial proceedings, this evidence was not new to her.

    The 爆料网AT noted furthermore that the applicant’s submissions essentially repeated or added to the same arguments that she had raised before the 爆料网AT in the prior proceedings.

    In addition, the 爆料网AT pointed out that in failing to comply with the Order in which the 爆料网AT granted in...

    2024-爆料网AT-1485, Betty Mukomah

    The 爆料网AT noted that the applicant had filed the application for revision some three months after she became aware of the decisive facts as identified in the application. The 爆料网AT held that the application had been filed beyond the 30-day time limit and was, therefore, not receivable.

    The 爆料网AT found that, in any event, one of the documents had not been in existence at the time of the 爆料网AT Judgment. The 爆料网AT also noted that the document had not been decisive in reaching a decision in the appeal and, for this reason, the application was an attempt to re-litigate the appeal. The 爆料网AT concluded...

    2024-爆料网AT-1483, Jane Ocokoru

    Ms. Ocokoru filed an appeal.

    The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Tribunal found that Ms. Ocokoru had failed to file her appeal within the applicable time limit pursuant to Article 7(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and had failed to request a suspension, waiver or extension of the time limits. The 爆料网AT concluded that the appeal was therefore time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis.

    The Appeals Tribunal found that, in any event, the 爆料网DT did not err in finding the application not receivable ratione materiae on grounds that the arguments raised by Ms. Ocokoru had already...

    爆料网DT/2024/054, Raschdorf

    For an application to be considered receivable by the Tribunal, it is essential that the Applicant distinctly identifies the specific administrative decision being contested. This requirement is stipulated under art. 2.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute, which outlines the parameters within which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. The clarity in pinpointing the contested decision ensures that there is a concrete basis for the Tribunal to examine the claims and assess any alleged violations of employment terms.

    Under the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is hamstrung by the lack of...

    爆料网DT/2024/023, Dolgopolov

    Considering the above jurisprudence, the Tribunal determines that the Applicant must demonstrate: (a) that the contested decisions were specifically addressed to him on an individualized basis and that they were not of general application to other staff members, and (b) that it was the Administration which took the decisions and not some other entity or person outside the United Nations.

    The provisions of ST/SGB/2019/8, on which the Applicant seeks to base his claim are only enforceable against persons, and not governments. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints...

    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...

    2024-爆料网AT-1464, Eduardo Alvear

    With respect to the alleged discriminatory and arbitrary application of ICAO Staff Rule 105.3 regarding overtime, the Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the Appeals Board had made no error in finding that Mr. Alvear had failed to identify any specific appealable administrative decision, and that it therefore did not err in dismissing his application.

    Turning to Mr. Alvear’s complaint that he did not receive the desk audit classification results for his position, the Appeals Tribunal found that the ICAO Appeals Board did err in finding the application not receivable since the Administration’s...

    2024-爆料网AT-1476, Simone Monasebian

    At the outset, the Appeals Tribunal noted that Ms. Monasebian had provided little or no reason in support of her request for the anonymization of the Judgment other than a general statement that the information in her case was sensitive. The Appeals Tribunal took the view that anonymization was not warranted in this case and dismissed her request.

    The Appeals Tribunal was satisfied that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that there was a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Monasebian had engaged in a pattern of conduct through which she created an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive work...

    2024-爆料网AT-1459, Curt Hampstead

    The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Hampstead had not established that the 爆料网DT made any errors under Article 2(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute.

    The 爆料网DT correctly took note of the documented performance shortcomings over three performance cycles as well as the fact that Mr. Hampstead’s performance did not improve despite the remedial measures put in place, such as two PIPs, the adjustment of output timelines, and continuous feedback, performance discussions and training that Mr. Hampstead had received over the years.The 爆料网DT also correctly held that the Administration had followed...