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 301 - 310 of 1006
    2022-爆料网AT-1247, Rania Mohammed Dajani

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s claim, that a final decision on her 2013 request for post reclassification was only issued in 2019, could not be considered as it was raised for the first time at the appellate level. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT correctly found that the 12 December 2014 e-mail which informed her that all classifications were on hold constituted an administrative decision because it rejected her request for immediate reclassification. 爆料网AT held that to allow the Appellant’s argument that the postponement or freezing of requests for reclassification does not constitute an...

    2022-爆料网AT-1244, Reem Khaled Matahen

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms. Matahen. 爆料网AT held that her appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal as forming the legal basis of her appeal. With regard to Ms. Matahen’s written request for an extension of time to file an application, 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网RWA DT did not err in finding that her allegation that she had only found out on 17 August 2020 that another similar request for Early Voluntary Retirement had been granted by 爆料网RWA, did not constitute an exceptional circumstance, namely, a...

    2022-爆料网AT-1232, Baker Okwir

    Mr. Okwir appealed. 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT correctly held that the OiC/OIOS had the authority to take the decision not to investigate Mr. Okwir’s allegations. As Section 4.3 of ST/SGB/2019/2 provides that all subdelegations issued by the predecessor shall remain valid unless otherwise withdrawn or modified by the successor, the 爆料网DT concluded that the mere fact that the new USG/OIOS began her term did not make subdelegations by the predecessor invalid. 爆料网AT concluded that on 25 October 2019, both the ASG/OIOS and the newly appointed USG/OIOS were competent to make the decision. The new USG...

    2022-爆料网AT-1231, Sergio Arvizu Trevino

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had no standing to seek consideration by a full bench. 爆料网AT held that to the extent 爆料网DT engaged in a fact-finding exercise of its own, this was not a legitimate exercise of its competence. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s failure to provide adequate reasons for the contested decision resulted in the contested decision being unlawful. 爆料网AT held that the Administration’s failure to exercise its discretion with regard to carrying out an investigation also rendered the contested decision unlawful. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal in part. 爆料网AT vacated the 爆料网DT Judgment by...

    2022-爆料网AT-1228, Sarah Coleman

    Ms. Coleman filed an appeal against the 爆料网DT Judgment asking that 爆料网AT reverse the 爆料网DT findings that (i) the failure to answer Ms. Coleman’s repeated requests for information about her case did not amount to a procedural violation; (ii) Ms. Coleman had failed to provide proof of bias or prejudice; (iii) she was not entitled to moral damages. 爆料网AT found that the specific grounds of appeal under (i) and (ii) were devoid of any practicality as, even if they were to be accepted by the Appeals Tribunal as legally and factually true, this would not lead to a different ruling having an actual, real...

    2022-爆料网AT-1225, Sarah Coleman

    Ms. Coleman appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT noted that in reaching its conclusion that it was reasonable for the Administration to decide that it was not in the interest of the Organization to keep Ms. Coleman on pay status whilst not performing work until the expiry of her fixed-term appointment, the 爆料网DT considered, inter alia, that: i) she had placed herself in a situation in which she could no longer perform her duties in Pakistan; ii) she had rejected the temporary assignment offered to her in South Soudan; and iii) she was not interested in...

    2022-爆料网AT-1224, Howard Andrew Giles

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 2021-爆料网AT-1106. With reference to Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, 爆料网AT held that it was neither satisfied that the blank tax returns as provided by Mr. Giles’ were unknown to the 爆料网AT and to the party applying for the revision at the time the relevant Judgment was rendered nor that the blank tax returns were a decisive fact. 爆料网AT held that the Applicant reiterated arguments he had made previously, which was not the purpose nor intention of an application for revision of judgment. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2022-爆料网AT-1223, Cristina Silva

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Silva. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed several errors of law and fact and the decision to reassign Ms. Silva was without procedural flaws. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT’s jurisprudence does not establish a need for prior consultation for every reassignment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had an incorrect understanding of the contested administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred when it held that the reassignment decision should have been notified in formal writing as it significantly altered Ms. Silva’s terms and conditions of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1219, Ashraf Zaqqout

    爆料网AT held that the determination of the Director of the Ethics Office that no retaliation had occurred constituted an administrative decision that went directly to the merits of the case and could not be subject to an interlocutory appeal. 爆料网AT held that the appeal against the 爆料网RWA DT order for production of document was not receivable, because it was interrelated to the alleged lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the Appellant would not be able to raise his issues in an appeal against the final judgment, as he did not file an application to 爆料网RWA DT and 爆料网RWA DT had not issued a judgment, 爆料网AT...

    2022-爆料网AT-1211, Alaa Skheileh

    The staff member applies for revision of Judgment on account that both he and 爆料网AT were unaware of various 爆料网RWA DT Judgments dealing with service-incurred injury cases. 爆料网AT rejected the application for revision on account that the nature of the injury, whether service-incurred or not, had no bearing on whether the staff member was debarred from receiving compensation. The reason he was denied compensation was because he did not assign his right of action, not because of the nature of his injury, service-incurred or not. Furthermore, 爆料网AT also reasoned prior 爆料网RWA DT judgments do not...