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 361 - 370 of 1006
    2011-爆料网AT-122, Rolland

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Ms Rolland and a cross-appeal against the award of damages by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the selection process conducted by an interview panel can be rescinded under rare circumstances. 爆料网AT noted that, in general, when candidates have received fair consideration, discrimination and bias are absent, proper procedures have been followed, and all relevant material has been taken into consideration, the selection shall be upheld. 爆料网AT held that Ms Rolland failed to discharge the burden of proof, by showing through clear and convincing evidence that she was...

    2011-爆料网AT-123, Messinger

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant’s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that it was not persuaded that 爆料网DT made any errors of...

    2011-爆料网AT-124, Appellant

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to show how 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not identified an error on a question of law. 爆料网AT held that it had no reason to disagree with 爆料网DT’s holding that no institutional prejudice, or retaliation, played a part in the non-renewal of the Appellant’s contract. 爆料网AT noted that the decision to take the Appellant’s portfolio away from him had been taken before he had made any report of wrongdoing. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant’s non-selection for the 11 posts involved...

    2011-爆料网AT-111, Sprauten

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General limited to Case 2. 爆料网AT held that it did not matter that the start date of the contract was not mentioned in the offer itself, as the emails showed that this date was clearly given as an essential condition for the offer and that it was only subject to minimal change. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT distorted the facts by failing to recognise that, in this case, the start date was an essential condition for the offer and that, by continuing to contest it, Mr Sprauten had never unconditionally accepted the offer made to him. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed...

    2011-爆料网AT-113, Kamanou

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in deciding to review the non-attribution issue separately from the other issues. 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. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, annulled the judgment and remanded the case to 爆料网DT for a de novo review.

    2011-爆料网AT-118, Abu-Hawaila

    爆料网AT was not persuaded that 爆料网DT erred in its judgment. 爆料网AT held that, at the time of receipt of his settlement offer, the time limit to file the application to 爆料网DT had already run for approximately three weeks and nothing prevented the Appellant from filing his application or applying for a waiver or extension of the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the exceptional suspension of time limits provided for under Article 8(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute and provisional Staff Rule 11. 1 applied only to informal dispute resolution conducted through the Office of the Ombudsman. 爆料网AT held that the settlement...

    2011-爆料网AT-108, Ajdini et al.

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of 爆料网DT Order No. 50 (GVA/2010) by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the issue under consideration was settled, as 爆料网AT had consistently held that 爆料网DT had no jurisdiction to waive deadlines for management evaluation or administrative review. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a question of law in determining that it had the authority to waive the deadlines for administrative review. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the 爆料网DT Order.

    2011-爆料网AT-110, Abbassi

    The staff member appealed on the ground that 爆料网DT had made errors of fact in the judgment. 爆料网AT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, 爆料网AT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by 爆料网DT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the 爆料网DT’s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

    2011-爆料网AT-162, Azzouni

    Ms. Azzouni filed an application for revision of judgment No. 2020-爆料网AT-081 for clarification of the date upon which the two years’ net base salary was to be calculated and requested that it be set as of the date of the judgment, or, alternatively, that an interest rate be applied to the compensation awarded from the date of separation to that of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that it would treat the application as an application for interpretation under Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. On the basis that the purpose of compensation is to place a staff member in the same position he or she would...