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 441 - 450 of 1006
    2014-爆料网AT-490, Dzuverovic

    爆料网AT considered Ms Dzuverovic’s Application for Interpretation of judgment, specifically the portion that dismissed the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal to redact the recommendations made by 爆料网DT and thus allowed them to remain despite the fact that Ms Dzuverovic’s 爆料网DT application was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that it explained the meaning and scope of its decision to dismiss the Secretary-General’s cross-appeal and not to redact the 爆料网DT recommendations when it stated that the recommendations had no binding consequences on the parties. 爆料网AT found that the judgment was not ambiguous and...

    2014-爆料网AT-489, Sidell

    爆料网AT considered Mrs Sidell’s two Applications, one for correction and the other for interpretation of the judgment. With respect to the Application for correction, 爆料网AT held that there were no clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the relevant paragraphs and that Mrs Sidell merely disagreed with the referenced portions of the judgment. With respect to the Application for interpretation, 爆料网AT held that the referenced paragraphs were clear in meaning on the face of the record and did not need any interpretation. 爆料网AT denied both Applications.

    2014-爆料网AT-461, Al-Badri

    The Secretary-General appealed 爆料网DT’s decision to admit to judicial review Ms Al-Badri's challenge against the decision to abolish her post in Amman and to create a new post at the same level in Baghdad. 爆料网AT only considered the receivability of this appeal. 爆料网AT held that alleged excess of jurisdiction or competence on the part of 爆料网DT, so as to admit an appeal of an interlocutory order or judgment, must be clear or manifest. 爆料网AT recalled its jurisprudence that the general principle underlying the right of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute is that only final judgments of...

    2014-爆料网AT-456, Pirnea

    爆料网AT considered both an application for Revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-311 and a motion for confidentiality filed by Mr Pirnea. On the application for revision of judgment, 爆料网AT held that Mr Pirnea did not set forth a new fact that was unknown to both him and 爆料网AT at the time the judgment was rendered. Thus, his application did not come within the grounds for revision set forth in Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure. On the motion for confidentiality, 爆料网AT noted that the motion was late, and it was unlikely that confidentiality could be achieved...

    2014-爆料网AT-442, El-Khalek

    爆料网RWA DT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in fact or in law such as to vitiate its judgment, except with regards to the award of compensation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not overstep its role to judicially review the administrative decision imposing a disciplinary measure on the staff member and terminating his appointment. 爆料网AT held that the Administration had failed to demonstrate that the staff member had committed the serious misconduct he had been charged with, because not only did the proceedings fail to provide him with an adequate...

    2014-爆料网AT-440, Stoykov

    爆料网AT held that, while the representatives of the parties were present at the oral proceedings, they are entitled to the record of the testimonies made at those proceedings from the relevant 爆料网DT Registry. 爆料网AT held that this record is critical for the preparation of the appeal case. 爆料网AT held that the transcripts of the testimonies of seven out of 17 witnesses were missing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was entitled to the record of the testimonies critical to the preparation of the appeal case, applying its jurisprudence in Finnis (Order No. 49 (2011)). 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT...

    2014-爆料网AT-427, Simmons

    爆料网AT found that the facts were not disputed in this case. 爆料网AT found that the appeal addressed errors of law and fact, maintaining that the Organisation was liable for accidents that occur on the way home, either directly or by a detour. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT judgment very clearly stated the applicable law in Appendix D of the Staff Rules and that there was no error in the ABCC’s practice not to cover injuries sustained during travel to and from work by an indirect route. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2014-爆料网AT-426, Kacan

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to show that 爆料网DT exceeded its discretion in matters of case management. 爆料网AT noted that it was indisputable that the Appellant had made a request to 爆料网DT for his witness to be called. 爆料网AT found that there was no mention of any witness in the 爆料网DT judgment and that it was not clear that 爆料网DT had considered that evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant should have been given the opportunity to call his witness or given an explanation by 爆料网DT for not calling the witness. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision...

    2014-爆料网AT-423, Bastet

    爆料网AT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding 爆料网DT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), 爆料网AT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of 爆料网DT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that 爆料网DT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, 爆料网AT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant...

    2014-爆料网AT-419, Reid

    爆料网AT preliminarily rejected the request for an oral hearing finding no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the Appellant failed to identify an administrative decision, having a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights, capable of being reviewed. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not challenging a specific administrative but had asked 爆料网DT to overturn a policy. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.