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 211 - 220 of 1006
    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-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...

    爆料网DT/2022/075, Stepanovic

    Where a staff member is challenging many different administrative decisions to be considered as a whole,with cumulative effect, there is no need to challenge them (by a management evaluation request and then application before the Tribunal) one by one.

    The Applicant alleged that he was deprived of his core functions in 2018 and 2019, that is more than two years before the application. He only requested management evaluation in April 2021 against a 2018 decision, and not towards the subsequent administrative decisions.

    Even if the Tribunal accepted that the last of the adverse decisions was...

    爆料网DT/2023/005, Uzele

    The Tribunal noted that the gist of the application, clearly, was against the warning letter and not against the management evaluation in and of its own. The management evaluation request in this case was filed outside the statutory deadlines but above all, was unnecessary. The application against a non-disciplinary measure issued pursuant to staff rule 10.2(b) does not require management evaluation. In this case, pursuant to staff rule 11.4(b), the Applicant ought to have filed his application with the Tribunal within 90 calendar days from the date on which he received notification of the...

    2023-爆料网AT-1351, Imran Ahmad Shah

    The main issue presented in this appeal was whether the 爆料网DT was correct to dismiss Mr. Shah’s application as not receivable ratione materiae because he was not challenging a final administrative decision. The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly found that an interoffice memorandum that changed the reporting lines for all of the staff who worked on the India side of the United Nations Mission Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (爆料网MOGIP) was not an appealable administrative decision because it did not deprive Mr. Shah of his work or affect his functions.

    The 爆料网AT also rejected Mr...

    2023-爆料网AT-1349, Said Ali Tamalawi

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by the staff member.

    The 爆料网AT found that, in his appeal, the staff member failed to state the grounds of appeal, identify the defects of the impugned judgment and demonstrate on which grounds it was erroneous.

    The 爆料网AT noted that, in reaching its conclusion, the 爆料网RWA DT found that the staff member admittedly did not submit a request for decision review. The 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it found that the staff member’s application was on that basis not receivable ratione materiae.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2022/022.

    2023-爆料网AT-1370, AAC

    After requesting additional findings of fact from the 爆料网DT, the 爆料网AT reconsidered an appeal by the staff member following the prior remand.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT’s judgment had failed to make a single mention of the nature, content or purpose of the testimony adduced under oath before it but was based entirely on hearsay evidence drawn exclusively from the investigation report and other documents. The 爆料网AT found problematic the fact that the 爆料网DT made no pronouncement as to why it exclusively relied on hearsay evidence and gave no reason why the evidence was not given by the person...

    2023-爆料网AT-1371, Enrico Muratore Aprosio

    The 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. It found that it would add nothing to his case presented in writing to hear from him in person and that an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposition of the case.

    The 爆料网AT held that much of the submissions advanced by the Appellant did amount to a resubmission of the case put to the 爆料网DT but which it did not accept.

    The 爆料网AT found that the WSSCC structure was closed down on 31 December 2020 at the instigation of its donors and replaced by another organisation (the Sanitation and Hygiene Fund). It...