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 221 - 230 of 1006
    2022-爆料网AT-1240, Ayesha Al Rifai

    The 爆料网AT noted that the simple issue arising in this appeal was whether it was appropriate and correct for the judge to have proceeded with the application for review of the contested decisions while the motion for recusal was pending. The 爆料网AT held that the straightforward answer is that it was not.

    An application for recusal can be brought at any time in the proceedings and is usually a difficult strategic choice for the party making the challenge. Such an application is made, typically, at the moment the party loses confidence in the judge. Its timing will depend on the circumstances. The...

    2022-爆料网AT-1295, Alejandro Arigon

    爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网JSPB decision.

    爆料网AT recalled that at the time of Mr. Arigon’s entry into participation in 2002, Article 24 did not allow him the option to restore his prior contributory service because that option was limited to participants whose previous period of contributory service was less than five years and who had received a withdrawal settlement; neither of which applied to him. When the 2007 amendment to Article 24 was introduced, he had a one-year window, from 1 April 2007 to 1 April 2008, during which he could elect to restore his prior period of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1239, Hassan Saleh

    爆料网AT held that Mr. Saleh’s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the 爆料网DT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the 爆料网DT.

    爆料网AT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. 爆料网AT then held that Mr. Saleh’s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the 爆料网DT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

    2022-爆料网AT-1294, AAF

    AAF appealed.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the Secretary-General had not committed any procedural errors which would have render the contested decision unlawful.

    The 爆料网AT held that the shortcomings under Section 2.2 of ST/SGB/2019/3 could only be regarded as substantial procedural irregularities (rendering the refusal to implement flexible working arrangements unlawful) if the lack of providing such reasoning had impacted the staff member’s due process rights, namely his or her possibility of challenging the administrative decision before the 爆料网DT. As the Secretary-General had...

    2022-爆料网AT-1212, Lillian Ular

    爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网DT that the first two claims should be dismissed. The Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence showing that her candidacy was not given full and fair consideration. Regarding the generalized complaint of harassment, 爆料网AT agreed that the application on this question was not receivable.

    However, in regards to the finding that the Administration abused its authority in mishandling the Appellant’s sexual harassment complaint, 爆料网AT held that there was an error in procedure. The Appellant made a motion to admit additional evidence, and the 爆料网DT made no ruling on this...

    2022-爆料网AT-1200, Elizabeth Dettori

    The crucial question on appeal was whether the 爆料网DT committed any error when it only referred for accountability the Chief of Investigations of OIAI but not the ED and other staff members of 爆料网ICEF. The 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网DT judgment, because it was within the Dispute Tribunal’s discretion to reject the applicant’s request for referral. The 爆料网DT’s legal approach was correct. The 爆料网DT decided not to refer the ED of 爆料网ICEF for accountability because it was not shown that she had had any influence in the handling of applicant’s complaint. Ms. Dettori also did not show on...

    2022-爆料网AT-1193, Carolina Larriera

    Ms. Larriera sought revision of the 爆料网AT judgment on the grounds that new decisive facts had emerged from the French government regarding her relationship with the deceased participant of the 爆料网JSPF, Mr. M. Specifically, she maintains that the French government has endorsed the findings of a Brazilian court that she was in a “stable union” with Mr. M., and that this has also been annotated on the death certificate of Mr. M.

    爆料网AT observed that Ms. Larriera’s application for revision was untimely. In addition, 爆料网AT concluded that these allegedly decisive facts occurred in 2021, well after the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1192, Andrew Webster

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Webster. 爆料网AT held that although the current legal framework (ISA Staff Rule 11.2), mentions the establishment of a neutral first instance process with staff participation to take a decision upon any appeal by staff members against an administrative decision alleging the non-observance of their terms of appointment, including all pertinent regulations and rules, there is, to this date, no such neutral first instance process. According to the Staff Rules, the JAB Panel shall submit a report to the Secretary-General, who takes the final decision.

    While it is...

    2023-爆料网AT-1352, Samer Nayif Mahmud Mohammad

    The 爆料网AT held that the Applicant’s application for revision did not comply with the requirements set out in Article 11(1) of the Appeals Tribunal Statute and Article 24 of the Appeals Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Indeed, it concluded that there was no fact discovered after the issuance of the 爆料网AT Judgment, which was unknown to the Appeals Tribunal and to the Applicant. Rather, it found that his submissions basically repeat or add to the same arguments which were previously assessed by the Agency, the 爆料网RWA DT and the Appeals Tribunal. It concluded that the only new arguments advanced by...

    2023-爆料网AT-1353, Nisreen Abusultan

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant has failed to discharge her burden and has not demonstrated that the 爆料网RWA DT committed any of the errors outlined in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. It concluded that the Appellant relitigated arguments that failed before the 爆料网RWA Dispute Tribunal and expressed her general disagreement with the impugned Judgment.

    The 爆料网AT held that the contested decision was a valid and lawful exercise of the Agency’s discretion. It found that the Agency reviewed and considered the Appellant’s request for telecommuting in accordance with the legal framework, i.e. Area...