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 131 - 140 of 1006
    2024-爆料网AT-1446, Ashok Kumar Nigam

    The 爆料网AT held that, since Mr. Nigam based his interlocutory appeal on alleged errors of fact and law by the 爆料网DT Judge President, with no allegation of the 爆料网DT acting extra-jurisdictionally or similarly in excess of its jurisdiction, he must wait to exercise his right of appeal until a final decision has been made.

    The 爆料网AT concluded that an earlier 爆料网DT Judgment contained neither any indication of bias by Judge Belle against Mr. Nigam, nor any criticism beyond what a reasonably informed observer might expect from a partly erroneous judgment and its subsequent appellate review.

    The 爆料网AT...

    2024-爆料网AT-1413, Khaled Hejab, et al.

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT erred in consolidating the seven cases. The consolidated cases involved unique administrative decisions, and those decisions involved neither a common administrative policy nor a common set of facts. The nature of the misconduct attributed to the staff members was not similar among the cases. The cases concerned staff from different 爆料网RWA field offices. The disciplinary measures taken were not identical among the cases, but included a wide range of penalties. The standards of proof for the misconduct alleged in case varied.

    The 爆料网AT disagreed with the...

    2024-爆料网AT-1443, Ahmad Shukri Safi

    The 爆料网AT held that Mr. Safi failed to discharge his burden in identifying in what respect and for what reasons the 爆料网RWA DT erred in its Judgment. Mr. Safi merely reiterated the same arguments that he had presented in his application to the 爆料网RWA DT. The 爆料网AT stated that it is not its role to reexamine the staff member’s case anew, and accordingly, his appeal must fail. The 爆料网AT also observed that the 爆料网RWA DT drew reasonable inferences from its extensive fact-finding exercise and delivered a well-reasoned judgment.

    The appeal was dismissed, and Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2023/011 was...

    2024-爆料网AT-1450, Mohammad Hossain

    The 爆料网AT specified that the sole issue was whether the applicant, a former staff member, had presented a new and decisive fact that was unknown to him and the Appeals Tribunal when the prior 爆料网AT Judgment was decided, and that this fact would have materially impacted the outcome of that Judgment.

    The 爆料网AT reviewed the documents submitted by the former staff member and concluded that they were all known to him prior to the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment. The former staff member essentially repeated or added to the same arguments he made in his original appeal, and the 爆料网AT had already...

    2024-爆料网AT-1462, Firas Mihyar

    The 爆料网AT first observed that the staff member dedicated parts of his appeal brief to challenging the findings of fact in an earlier 爆料网DT judgment concerning his disciplinary case. The 爆料网AT held that he was estopped from doing so because he did not appeal this earlier 爆料网DT judgment.

    The 爆料网AT was satisfied that when the 爆料网DT reviewed the disciplinary sanction imposed, the 爆料网DT properly considered previous cases involving comparable misconduct, as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors raised by the staff member were considered by the Administration, but they simply...

    2024-爆料网AT-1463, AAW

    The 爆料网AT noted that the 爆料网RWA DT had ordered each party to nominate a psychiatrist, who in turn were to designate a third psychiatrist to review whether the staff member’s mental condition at the time he committed the burglary, sentencing for which had been the grounds for his separation in the interest of the Agency.The Commissioner-General failed to comply with this instruction, without explanation, thereby leaving the 爆料网RWA DT with no medical information about AAW's condition at the time of the burglary.

    The 爆料网AT found that the Commissioner-General had clearly and manifestly abused the...

    2024-爆料网AT-1465, Sabrije Hoxha

    The 爆料网AT noted that the reclassification request was made by 爆料网IFIL and not by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT held that although extensive delays occurred before the request for reclassification was determined by the Administration, no final reclassification decision had been taken at the time the application was filed to the 爆料网DT by the staff member. Accordingly, since no decision had been made yet, she could not have experienced a direct adverse effect on the terms of her appointment. The fact that there were delays in the reclassification decision does not change the analysis. It is a...

    2024-爆料网AT-1460, Al Waleed Abdelrahman Abdrabou

    The 爆料网AT noted that the 爆料网DT had appropriately relied on the clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the staff member had submitted a medical insurance claim to Cigna for medical services that had never been provided.

    The 爆料网AT held that the evidence established that it was highly probable that the staff member had made the misrepresentation to Cigna with the intent to deceive and that his actions had been potentially prejudicial to the 爆料网DP which was subject to any loss from undue reimbursements.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member’s certification to Cigna of the correctness of the...