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 471 - 480 of 1006
    2015-爆料网AT-579, Achkar

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify the grounds for his appeal and thus, the appeal was defective. 爆料网AT inferred that the Appellant claimed 爆料网RWA DT failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT held that the legal conclusion of 爆料网DT that the application before it was not receivable was unassailable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err when it did not discuss whether the case was an exceptional case for extending, waiving, or suspending the deadline for the filing of the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2015-爆料网AT-576, Harrich

    爆料网AT held that a staff member cannot extend the statutory deadline to appeal by filing post-judgment motions. 爆料网AT noted that to hold otherwise would allow the parties to set their own deadlines for appeal of a 爆料网DT judgment and undermine the mandatory nature of the statutory deadline in Article 7.1(c) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

    2015-爆料网AT-577, Staedler

    Noting that 爆料网DT concluded that the Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) had provided the Appellant with legal assistance and that its refusal to provide legal representation was reasoned, appropriate, and did not breach any lawful obligations of OSLA, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in reaching this conclusion. 爆料网AT found no fault with 爆料网DT’s rejection of the Appellant’s contention that OSLA had no discretionary authority. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law or fact or exceed its competence in finding that the reasons for OSLA’s decision were...

    2015-爆料网AT-578, Staedtler

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct to reject the Appellant’s application and held that the appeal had no merit. 爆料网AT held that ,for various reasons, 爆料网DT erred in not finding that the whole of the application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not decide the question of whether an investigation ought to be conducted, but rather passed it into the hands of 爆料网-Habitat. 爆料网AT held that this preliminary step of referral was not, of itself, capable of producing direct legal consequences affecting the Appellant’s terms of conditions of...

    2015-爆料网AT-580, Kalil

    爆料网AT considered an appeal against Order No. 057 (爆料网RWA/DT/2014) and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2014/027. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for confidentiality and for the redaction of his name from the 爆料网RWA DT judgment and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s reasoning. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to submit new evidence to 爆料网AT on the basis that the Appellant did not offer any explanation as to why he was precluded from filing them previously, exceptional circumstances did not exist, and its content would not have affected the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that it was for 爆料网RWA DT to consider that it...

    2015-爆料网AT-581, Selim

    爆料网AT held that the additional documents filed by the Appellant were inadmissible in that they were not relevant to the central issue in the present case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the Appellant failed to identify a specific decision that had a direct and adverse impact on his contractual rights and thus did not identify an administrative decision capable of being reviewed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in concluding that there was no evidence of the Appellant having requested management evaluation of any administrative decision, nor any evidence of having submitted...

    2015-爆料网AT-585, Likuyani

    爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2013-爆料网AT-297. 爆料网AT noted that the application for revision was filed more than six months beyond the time limit. 爆料网AT held that the application for revision was not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal.

    2015-爆料网AT-566, Terragnolo

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make an error of law in concluding that the Appellant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that there was no implied administrative decision to challenge at the time the Appellant filed his judicial review application and that his application was also not receivable on that basis. 爆料网AT found no errors of fact or law by 爆料网DT in awarding costs against the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was well-aware of his obligation to comply with Staff Rule 11.2(a), yet he: (a) intentionally failed to seek management...

    2015-爆料网AT-563, Reid

    爆料网AT noted that the Appellant was not bringing a claim that he did not receive the benefits and entitlements which pertained to a temporary appointment, but rather his allegation was that the General Assembly resolutions which gave rise to the rules and administrative issuances regulating his employment did not adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work and were contrary to a myriad of international human rights instruments to which the Organisation was bound to adhere. 爆料网AT held that the policy change for staff members on temporary contracts was binding on the Secretary-General, who...

    2015-爆料网AT-573, Walden

    爆料网AT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-爆料网AT-436 as well as a motion requesting that 爆料网AT strike certain paragraphs from it. 爆料网AT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. 爆料网AT held that his application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.