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 491 - 500 of 1006
    2015-爆料网AT-531, Rangel

    爆料网AT considered seven motions submitted by Ms Rangel prior to a judgment on the merits. On the two Motions for Interim Relief, 爆料网AT held that Ms Rangel did not seek an interim measure for temporary relief consistent with the pronouncements of the ICJ Conciliation Committee, but rather she sought interim relief in cases where the Committee had dismissed her applications. 爆料网AT held that since one of the two cumulative conditions under Article 9(4) of the 爆料网AT Statute was not fulfilled, it did not need to further consider the second condition. 爆料网AT denied the requests for interim relief. On the...

    2015-爆料网AT-535, Rangel

    爆料网AT had before it three decisions of the Conciliation Committee: the first regarding the establishment of two inquiry panels, Panel One and Panel Two; the second in respect of the decision to place the Appellant on administrative leave with pay, and the third concerning the decision to separate her from service. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT did not admit to the case file two motions submitted by the Appellant subsequent to the issuance of judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-531, as 爆料网AT held that the documents that she sought to adduce would not assist 爆料网AT with its consideration on the merits. By way of...

    2015-爆料网AT-539, Aliko

    爆料网AT considered appeals by both Mr Aliko and the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that Mr Aliko’s application contesting the decision refusing his request to change nationality for 爆料网 purposes was time-barred. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in rejecting as not receivable Mr Aliko’s claims against the decisions on his ineligibility for education grant and on education grant recovery. 爆料网AT held that it was lawful for the Administration to use Mr Aliko’s pending entitlements to recover part of his indebtedness to the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in concluding...

    2015-爆料网AT-538, Bezzicheri

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in unilaterally establishing new starting points for the time to run for the purpose of filing claims with the ABCC that were contrary to the express text of Article 12 of Appendix D to the Staff Rules. 爆料网AT held that this was a case where the staff member failed to appreciate the filing deadlines. 爆料网AT held that ignorance of the law was no excuse for missing deadlines. 爆料网AT held that it was open to the ABCC to find that the Appellant’s explanation for her delay did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the waiving of the four-month time limit prescribed...

    2015-爆料网AT-540, Aliko

    On the basis that the Appellant did not raise claims under the 爆料网AT Statute, reargued the claims he presented to 爆料网DT and failed to explain how 爆料网DT erred in deciding his claims, 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not make any errors of law or fact in denying the Appellant’s application and concluding that the selection process was correctly followed, the candidate was fully and fairly considered and there was no bias or procedural flaw. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly refused to address the Appellant’s various claims of harassment on the ground that he failed to establish proof...

    2015-爆料网AT-530, Ovcharenko et al.

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr Ovcharenko et al. and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. On the request of Mr Ovcharenko et al. for an oral hearing before the full bench of 爆料网AT, 爆料网AT held that the parties had no standing to request that the case be decided by a full bench and, accordingly, denied the request. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct when it examined the merits of the application and concluded that the administrative decision was lawful. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General had to comply with the General Assembly decision 67/551 of 24 December 2012 and the ensuing enactment of...

    2015-爆料网AT-524, Utkina

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s application to file a reply to the Secretary-General’s answer and her motion to file additional evidence. On the issue of redaction, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s concerns were unfounded because the judgments referenced her professional profile only in a general way and did not detail the confidential matters raised by the Appellant in her submission. 爆料网AT agreed with the findings of 爆料网DT that the previous judgment with the Appellant’s name as written had already been in the public domain for a long time and no useful purpose would be...

    2015-爆料网AT-526, Tintukasiri et al

    On the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing, 爆料网AT held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case since the sole issue on appeal was an issue of law (receivability). On the Appellants’ request that the appeal be heard by a full bench, 爆料网AT held that neither the President nor any two judges sitting on the appeal found the case raised a significant question of law warranting a full bench and denied the request. 爆料网AT held that: 爆料网DT was competent to review its own competence or jurisdiction; 爆料网DT correctly applied the jurisprudence of 爆料网AT in the definition of...

    2015-爆料网AT-529, Riano

    爆料网AT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. 爆料网RWA/DT/2013/035 and 爆料网RWA/DT/2014/004. 爆料网AT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant’s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that 爆料网RWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. 爆料网AT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of 爆料网RWA DT. 爆料网AT held...

    2015-爆料网AT-513, Simmons

    爆料网AT considered an application for execution. 爆料网AT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-221. 爆料网AT held that Ms Simmons’ contentions were not sustained. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-爆料网AT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). 爆料网AT rejected the application for execution.