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 341 - 350 of 1006
    2010-爆料网AT-045, Tsoneva

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err on a question of law in deciding that the Appellant had to establish that, without the errors committed in the review of her professional career, she would have had a real chance of being promoted. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish that 爆料网DT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, in deciding that she had failed to demonstrate that the few material errors in her factsheet deprived her of the chance to be promoted. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2010-爆料网AT-046, Vangelova

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. 爆料网AT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how 爆料网DT had erred on questions of...

    2010-爆料网AT-048, Sefraoui

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General appealed against the 爆料网DT judgment to seek a clarification of the ratio of the judgment with regard to the way in which 爆料网DT had applied the principle of preponderance of evidence and ignored the Secretary-General’s submissions on the basis of “minimal showing” that the Applicant had been fairly considered. 爆料网AT held that it would not examine the legal submissions in the appeal since the case had been decided in favour of the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that none of the grounds of appeal pleaded was valid under Article 2.1 of the 爆料网AT Statute...

    2010-爆料网AT-047, Attandi

    爆料网AT considered both appeals by Mr Attandi, against Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) and judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/038. 爆料网AT held that Order No. 02 (NBI/2010) was a directive to the Appellant and not a judgment against which an appeal could be filed. 爆料网AT held that an appeal against the Order was not receivable because it was not a final judgment rendered by 爆料网DT. Regarding judgment No. 爆料网DT/2010/038, 爆料网AT held that although the appeal was certainly receivable as the Appellant's case was struck out, there was no merit in his contentions. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to complete his appeal...

    2010-爆料网AT-044, Solanki

    爆料网AT preliminarily held that the Appellant had not identified any exceptional circumstances justifying the need to file observations in reply to the Secretary-General’s answer. 爆料网AT held that the observations would not be taken into consideration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly observed that it was not able to substitute itself for the Administration or to declare that the Appellant should have been promoted to the P-5 level. Regarding the Appellant’s contention about the quantum of compensation, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was in the best position to decide on the level of compensation given its...

    2010-爆料网AT-030, Tabari

    爆料网AT held that there were exceptional circumstances in this case that required a waiver of the time limit, with respect to A/RES/63/253. 爆料网AT held that the JAB showed inconsistency in its treatment of the cases of Tabari and Shehadeh; both cases were decided on the same day by the same panel, but in Tabari’s case there was a split verdict with the majority view being that there was no administrative decision that Tabari could appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant successfully demonstrated the manner in which the anomaly had arisen and noted that the Internal Review Panel took no action to...

    2010-爆料网AT-066, El Khatib

    爆料网AT considered an application for “reconsideration” of Judgment No. 2010-爆料网AT-029bis. 爆料网AT noted that its judgments are final and not subject to appeal except under Article 11 of its Statute, relating to the procedures for revision and correction of material errors and that no appeal against res judicata is admissible. 爆料网AT held that the application was an appeal against res judicata and, as such, was inadmissible. Noting that Ms. El-Khatib’s appeal was dismissed as non-receivable and without merit, 爆料网AT held that the application for “reconsideration” constituted an abuse of the appeals...

    2010-爆料网AT-021, Asaad

    In reviewing the Appellant’s appeal, 爆料网AT found that the decision to terminate the Appellant’s position was based on generalized reasons, as opposed to specific facts, and found no real justification for the decision. 爆料网AT held that this was inconsistent with the jurisprudence of the former Administrative Tribunal, which provides that an Administration must act in good faith and not make decisions based on erroneous, fallacious, or improper motivation. 爆料网AT noted that when an administrative decision concerns termination, it shall set an amount of compensation that the respondent may elect to...

    2010-爆料网AT-064, Kasmani

    爆料网AT stated that an Application for Interpretation is not receivable if its actual purpose is to have 爆料网AT re-examine its decision, even though its judgments are final and without appeal, or to have it comment on its decision. 爆料网AT held that the applications made under subparagraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 30 of the appeal, with the purpose of either calling into question the decision or having 爆料网AT issue comments on the decision, were not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the use of the word “annul” would not lead to confusion in the mind of a party in good faith because the language of...