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 231 - 240 of 1006
    2022-爆料网AT-1291, Korkut Yavuz

    爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the Administration’s decision not to set up a fact-finding investigation panel against Mr. Yavuz’s FRO and SRO was lawful, as the incidents described in Mr. Yavuz’s complaint did not provide sufficient grounds they had engaged in prohibited conduct (harassment, abuse of authority) but fell in the realm of workplace disagreements. 爆料网AT found that Mr. Yavuz did not show that the incidents mentioned in his complaint with regard to the conduct of his FRO and SRO were in any way motivated by any of the characteristics or traits (or similar) listed in Section 1...

    2023-爆料网AT-1361, AAO

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment was problematic because the 爆料网DT's findings seemed to be based entirely on hearsay evidence, i.e., the findings in the OIOS investigation report. The 爆料网AT observed that the 爆料网DT judgment failed to explain the evidentiary basis of its conclusion that sexual harassment was highly probable, and made no explicit or precise findings in relation to the evidence given under oath at the hearing. The failure of the 爆料网DT to make findings about the testimony it heard made the appeal well-nigh impossible. The 爆料网AT noted that there was no transcript of the hearing, and...

    2023-爆料网AT-1362, Richard Loto

    The 爆料网AT first dismissed as not receivable Mr. Loto’s appeal of the 爆料网DT’s Order denying his motion to strike an audio-recording and certain pleadings submitted by the Secretary-General. The 爆料网AT held that these matters could be addressed in Mr. Loto’s appeal of the judgment on the merits of his application.

    The 爆料网AT was satisfied that the 爆料网DT correctly admitted the audio-recording of the meeting between the alleged victim, Mr. Loto and others, as the recording assisted in resolving any evidential conflict about what transpired at this meeting, in which payment to the victim was discussed...

    2022-爆料网AT-1290, Nael Mohammed Fares Jibril

    Mr. Jibril appealed.

    As regards the request for an oral hearing, the 爆料网AT held that the factual and legal issues arising from this appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Moreover, an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the request for an oral hearing is denied.

    The 爆料网AT agreed with the 爆料网RWA DT that the challenged administrative decision to place Mr. Jibril on Administrative Leave With Pay (ALWP) was lawful. ...

    2022-爆料网AT-1288, Ashraf Zaqqout

    爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for correction of judgment on the grounds that Mr. Zaqqout attempted to relitigate his case instead of demonstrating mistakes in the nature of those intended to be covered by Article 11(2), and he had failed to explain the significant delay in applying to correct the alleged errors.

    爆料网AT also dismissed Mr. Zaqqout's application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT found that this being the second application for revision Mr. Zaqqout had filed in this case, he was required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, a test he did not meet; and that even if the...

    2022-爆料网AT-1287, Yussuf Ahmed Hassan

    Mr. Hassan appealed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    The 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the 爆料网DT erred in finding that his application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT concluded that at the time of the contested non-selection decision, the Appellant had been separated from service for more than a year and was no longer a staff member. He was an external candidate with no standing to challenge the decision not to select him for the new position of Resettlement Associate, as the decision was not affecting his former terms of appointment. Moreover, there was no offer of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1278, Langa Dorji

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Dorji.

    The 爆料网AT found that the appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of the appeal. As the 爆料网DT correctly held, Mr. Dorji’s alleged coerced resignation and subsequent separation from the Organization occurred in March and April 2019. Mr. Dorji’s request for management evaluation thereof was filed outside the 60-day statutory time limit by more than two years, on 25 June 2021.

    The 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. 爆料网DT/2021...

    爆料网DT/2022/050, Annette

    The Tribunal made the following observations: (a) staff rule 8.1(d) governs staff relations and specifically empowers polling officers to conduct elections of staff representatives based on applicable rules and regulations on staff elections, (b) staff rule 8.1(d) makes no reference whatsoever to any staff member’s individual contractual right, and (c) if there was any dispute concerning staff rule 8.1(d) on secrecy and fairness of the vote, the provision does not regulate modalities for resolving that dispute.

    Staff rule 8.1(d) and staff regulation 8.1(b) do not apply to any individual staff...

    2022-爆料网AT-1277, Betty Mukomah

    The 爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms. Mukomah.

    The 爆料网AT held that Ms. Mukomah’s submission that she was the spouse of the late participant at the time of his death and is therefore entitled on that basis to a widow’s benefit under Article 34 of the Fund’s Regulations, was not sustainable based on the evidence before the 爆料网AT.

    The 爆料网AT found that there was insufficient evidence proving that the late participant and Ms. Mukomah lawfully entered a (second) union legally recognized by the competent authority of Kenya conferring similar legal effects as a marriage in relation to pension rights...

    2022-爆料网AT-1275, Hussam Abd AlRhman Al Dirawi

    The 爆料网AT held that the supposedly unknown facts that Mr. Al Dirawi detailed in his application for revision of the 爆料网AT Judgment focus on findings and conclusions in the 爆料网AT Judgment with which he disagrees. Notably, these matters were considered in the original appeal and Mr. Al Dirawi basically submits a second appeal for a reassessment of the facts in his case, a remedy which is not available to the parties once the Appeals Tribunal has issued a final judgment. The 爆料网AT thus held that Mr. Al Dirawi's application was not receivable.