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 31 - 40 of 1006
    2025-爆料网AT-1598, Ishtiaq Aslam

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT correctly determined that the former staff member’s claims for compensation under Appendix D based on 爆料网AMID living conditions were not receivable because he had not exhausted mandatory medical review remedies. The 爆料网AT reaffirmed the principle that staff members must exhaust internal remedies before resorting to litigation.

    The 爆料网AT further held that the 爆料网DT erred in reviewing the merits of the x?ray machine injury claim while a medical board review was pending. The 爆料网AT found that both elements of the Appendix D claim were premature and should have been declared...

    2025-爆料网AT-1607, John Zumbu Massamba

    The 爆料网AT held that the former staff member filed his appeal within the statutory deadline.It noted that since he filed his application before the 爆料网DT in French, the 60-day time limit for filing his appeal ran from the date of receipt of the 爆料网DT Judgment in that same language.As he received the 爆料网DT Judgment in French on 15 January 2025 and filed his appeal on 20 February 2025, the 爆料网AT held that it was filed timely.

    Nevertheless, the 爆料网AT found that the former staff member’s application before the 爆料网DT was not receivable ratione temporis.The 爆料网AT observed that the former staff member...

    2025-爆料网AT-1611, Massimo Moroldo

    The 爆料网AT held that the only issue on appeal was whether the 爆料网DT erred in finding the additional disciplinary sanction disproportionate and rescinding it. It emphasized that under Staff Rule 10.3(b), sanctions must be proportionate, but the Administration enjoys broad discretion in disciplinary matters, subject to judicial review for lawfulness, rationality, and proportionality.

    The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT exceeded its authority by substituting its own opinion for that of the Secretary-General. It noted that the Administration had considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of...

    2025-爆料网AT-1614, Raul Antonio de Melo Cabral

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding the extensions of administrative leave with pay lawful, as the Administration reasonably assessed the risk to workplace harmony given the appellant’s senior role.

    The 爆料网AT agreed that the refusals to complete ePAS evaluations and to approve a subordinate’s workplan and telecommuting request constituted insubordination under Staff Rule 1.2(a), which requires compliance with instructions properly issued by supervisors. It clarified that staff must follow instructions even if they believe them unlawful, unless criminal, and that “properly issued”...

    2025-爆料网AT-1534-Corr.1, Dionette Pino Genayas

    The 爆料网AT noted that months after the death of the participant in the Fund, the Appellant had produced Pens.A/2 forms purporting to change the designation of the beneficiary of the residual settlement, executed by a thumbprint and not the participant’s signature. The 爆料网AT also noted the medical evidence of signs of the participant’s dementia.

    The 爆料网AT found that the Appellant had provided no evidence to support the contention that the participant’s mental capacity had improved by the time of thumbprinting the later forms. The 爆料网AT held that the Fund had not erred when it found those forms...

    2024-爆料网AT-1502, AAZ

    The 爆料网AT noted that the staff member had been ranked first on the list of recommended candidates but held that the High Commissioner had been under no obligation to select him, since all the candidates included in the list had been deemed suitable to carry out the functions of the post.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had given no convincing reason on appeal as to why and how an oral hearing before the 爆料网DT would have impacted the decision of the case.

    The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had not received a wrong performance rating and that the 爆料网DT had not misrepresented or failed to give...

    2024-爆料网AT-1494-Corr.1, Zafarkhon Sheralov

    The 爆料网AT first considered the staff member’s request for an oral hearing, and decided it was not necessary for the expeditious and fair disposal of his case.

    The 爆料网AT observed that when the only persons present in a physical assault are the perpetrator and the victim, an oral hearing may be useful for reaching credibility findings. However, in this case, the 爆料网AT noted that the staff member and his counsel agreed that they had no witnesses to present at an oral hearing and preferred to rely on the investigation report. In these circumstances, the 爆料网DT did not err in not holding an oral hearing...

    2025-爆料网AT-1612, Jean Daniel Ondo Mvondo

     

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

    The 爆料网AT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

    2025-爆料网AT-1601, ATR

    The 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err in finding that ATR’s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The 爆料网AT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

    The 爆料网AT further held that the 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

    2025-爆料网AT-1608, Patel Noble

    The 爆料网AT held that the staff member’s application was not receivable, as his placement on the overtime Priority Two List, rather than the Priority One List, and the consequent non-assignment of overtime to him on 10 April 2023, did not violate any regulations, rules or administrative issuances. The 爆料网AT found that the staff member had no contractual right, nor “de facto entitlement” to perform overtime work or to select his own overtime schedule. On the contrary, it recalled that the allocation of overtime is discretionary with management. Furthermore, the 爆料网AT observed that the...