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 311 - 320 of 1006
    2022-爆料网AT-1209, Edoardo Gianotti

    爆料网AT held the 爆料网DT was correct to find the application non-receivable ratione materiae. At the time of the 爆料网DT Judgment, there was no final administrative decision that had direct legal consequences on the Appellant’s terms of employment. In addition, in the intervening time, the Appellant has been selected for the post, and therefore, he has received that which he had sought originally, making his request for rescission of the contested decision moot. Regarding the request for compensation for the pay differential for 17 months, the Tribunal found because there was no appealable...

    2022-爆料网AT-1207, Michelle Rockcliffe

    爆料网AT disagreed and found the background of the prior retaliation against the Staff Member affects the principle of the presumption of regularity. In light of the circumstances of this particular case, 爆料网AT found the Administration bore the obligation to justify the lawfulness of its decision to cancel the Job Opening. 爆料网AT thus found the 爆料网DT erred by not requiring the Administration to establish its justification in law for the cancellation of the Job Opening. The administrative decision to cancel the Job Opening was rescinded, and the Tribunal set in lieu compensation at two years’ net base...

    2022-爆料网AT-1205, Roger Kuate

    Mr. Kuate appealed. 爆料网AT dismissed Mr. Kuate's contention that there was no basis until 1 April 2019, date of the final divorce decision, for the recovery of the allowances on grounds that the Cameroonian judgments were not final until that date. 爆料网AT found that Order No. 791 contained an enforceability clause and therefore the measures provided in that order went into force with immediate effect. Consequently, Mr. Kuate and his wife legally separated on 26 November 2015 when the order was issued. Also, on the basis of this order, from this day on Mr. Kuate had legal custody for (only) two of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1194, Jafar Hilmi Wakid

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT accepted 爆料网RWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT made fundamental errors of...

    2022-爆料网AT-1190, Emma Reilly

    Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. 爆料网AT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision. 爆料网AT dismissed the application. 爆料网AT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, 爆料网AT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. 爆料网AT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it...

    2022-爆料网AT-1214, Afm Badrul Alam

    爆料网AT granted the appeal in part. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred by failing to implement its mandatory obligation to award an amount of compensation in lieu of rescission. 爆料网AT held that there was no error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof that the contested decision caused a loss of income due to loss of career opportunity. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not discharge his onus to show that 爆料网DT erred as the first instance trier of fact with regard to the issue of moral damages, and therefore accepted the 爆料网DT’s findings on compensation for moral...

    2017-爆料网AT-807, Rockcliffe

    爆料网AT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the 爆料网SPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. 爆料网AT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the 爆料网SPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. 爆料网AT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as an...

    爆料网DT/2021/012, Richards

    The deadline for the Applicant’s request for compensation for any alleged irregularity in the handling of his complaint of misconduct started on 27 June 2019 when he was notified of the outcome of the complaint. The 27 June 2019 notification rendered the decision resulting from the Applicant’s complaint final and therefore reviewable under art. 2.1(a) of the Tribunal’s Statute. Consequently, the notification date starts the clock running for any challenge of such administrative decision. Under staff rule 11.2(c), the Applicant had 60 days to request management evaluation of the contested...

    爆料网DT/2022/049, Applicant

    The Tribunal held that neither claim (i), (the decision to continue to conduct an investigation) despite the Applicant's claimed medical condition, nor claim (ii) (the refusal to convene a medical board to examine it), had produced a decision of direct negative consequences for the Applicant. The impact, if any, of these decisions on the outcome of the disciplinary process will be examined in relation to his application against the disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the application, in relation to claims (i) and (ii) was dismissed as not receivable.

    爆料网DT/2022/045, Menon

    The Tribunal held that: the Applicant had not shown which terms of his appointment or which rules and regulations were violated by the Administration’s failure to reclassify a post he coveted and to budget for it; that he had not shown that the classification process had been completed; and that he was challenging a final decision from that process as per the provisions of ST/AI/1998/9.

    The Tribunal further held that the Applicant had failed to identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed, that is, a final, precise decision taken by a competent authority having direct adverse...