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 351 - 360 of 1006
    2010-爆料网AT-001, Campos

    爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT findings that there was no flaw in the procedure used by the Staff Management Coordinating Committee to select the staff representative on the IJC. 爆料网AT also affirmed the 爆料网DT judgments rejecting the staff member’s allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the 爆料网DT judges. 爆料网AT further rejected the staff member’s request that 爆料网AT judges recuse themselves from the hearing of the appeal, noting the limited role of the IJC in the appointment of the 爆料网AT judges and the lack of any professional relationship between the person appointed as a staff representative and...

    2010-爆料网AT-005, Tadonki

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeals against 爆料网DT decisions ordering the suspension of the contested decisions beyond the deadline for management evaluation. 爆料网AT clarified that, generally, only appeals against final judgments would be receivable, because otherwise, cases would seldom proceed if either party was dissatisfied with a procedural ruling. Article 2.2 of the 爆料网DT Statute authorizes 爆料网DT to order suspension of a contested decision only “during the pendency of the management evaluation”. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering suspension of the contested...

    2010-爆料网AT-034, Muthuswami et al.

    爆料网AT noted that the Appellants did not refer to any article of the Regulations that provides that the full retirement benefit may be restored after a participant opts to commute a portion of the retirement benefit into a lump sum. 爆料网AT held that the Appellants were bound by their decision to accept one-third of their pension as a lump sum and a reduced pension. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s decision could not simply be reversed. 爆料网AT rejected the argument that the Appellants had been discriminated against and that their basic fundamental rights concerning equity, fairness, and justice under...

    2011-爆料网AT-126, Lesar

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of Judgment No. 1465 of the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal submitted by Mr Lesar. 爆料网AT noted that General Assembly resolution 63/253 was silent on the question of revision of judgments handed down by the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal during the period prior to its abolishment. 爆料网AT held that the omission did not constitute a denial of the right to an effective remedy since a tribunal had already dispensed justice. 爆料网AT held that it was not competent to revise the former 爆料网 Administrative Tribunal Judgment and that therefore, the application...

    2011-爆料网AT-181, Alauddin

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the 爆料网DP decision to contact the Pakistani Government directly to enquire about its deputation policy was improperly motivated. With regard to the new communication upon which the Appellant wished to rely, 爆料网AT held that it was new evidence, for which leave was required, in order to adduce it before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT did not find any exceptional circumstances existed to require it to consider the new evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in taking into consideration the conditions governing the Appellant’s deputation in order to determine his...

    2011-爆料网AT-178, Hepworth

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to call witnesses at trial and prior to that was not able to discuss with his supervisor the reason for his transfer. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was receivable because 爆料网DT had committed an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case when it limited the evidence. 爆料网AT held that due process required that a staff member must know the reasons for a decision so that he or she can act on it and the complainant was left in an unfair position in terms of attempts to resolve the dispute when deprived of the opportunity to...

    2011-爆料网AT-176, Dzintars

    Although the Administration failed to take into account the Applicant’s upgraded performance appraisal, 爆料网AT held that this would make no difference to the outcome of the appeal because a staff member who has received two consecutive ratings of partially meets performance expectations has no legitimate expectation of renewal of contract at the end of the contract period. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was entitled to compensation for moral damages caused by the denial of his due process rights, payable under Article 9(1)(b) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal in part, modifying the 爆料网DT...

    2011-爆料网AT-177, Tabari

    On the issue of receivability, 爆料网AT noted that not taking a decision was also a decision. 爆料网AT noted that the alleged discrimination was based on a comparison between the claimant and staff members of a different category, namely international staff members. 爆料网AT held that the general principle of equal pay for equal work does not prevent a legislative body or the Administration from establishing different treatments for different categories of workers or staff members if the distinction is made on the basis of lawful goals. 爆料网AT held that there was no discrimination when the non-payment of...

    2011-爆料网AT-157, Onana

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable because it was not filed within the deadline. 爆料网AT held that there were no exceptional circumstances for it to waive the time limits. 爆料网AT was not persuaded that the Appellant did not receive the 爆料网DT judgment or any notification of the judgment, as he had actual knowledge of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s right to due process of law was not violated. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable as it was time-barred. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2011-爆料网AT-144, Thiam

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was time-barred and not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the time limit for filing an appeal may be suspended, waived, or extended, only in exceptional cases and upon a written request by an appellant prior to the filing of an appeal, which the Appellant failed to submit. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.