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 521 - 530 of 1006
    2016-爆料网AT-678, Khalaf

    爆料网AT preliminarily denied the request for an oral argument and then considered the merits of the appeal. 爆料网AT found that the requirements of Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute were not fulfilled in the Appellant’s case as 爆料网DT did not commit an error of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT noted that the evidence showed that the Administration was involved in a process of revision of activities in Iraq, rationalizing of staff, realignment of functions, and reduction of budget. These administrative activities led to the redeployment of the post encumbered by the Appellant...

    2016-爆料网AT-681, Karseboom

    爆料网AT considered Mr Karseboom’s application for interpretation of judgment regarding 爆料网AT’s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the 爆料网DT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. 爆料网AT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. 爆料网AT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

    2016-爆料网AT-671, Auda

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that while only final judgments of the 爆料网DT are appealable, exceptions may be made when 爆料网DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence regarding interlocutory orders. 爆料网AT held that an order denying an application for suspension of action does not constitute 爆料网DT exceeding its jurisdiction. 爆料网AT further noted that 爆料网DT correctly found that it had no jurisdiction to grant the application under Article 10(2) of the 爆料网DT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae.

    2016-爆料网AT-673, Nquyen-Kropp & Postica

    爆料网AT first considered the receivability of the appeal and held that it was receivable, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT further held that the Ethics Office is limited to making recommendations, which are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review, to the Administration. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT made no error in dismissing the applications on the ground that the Ethics Office matters were not administrative decisions subject to judicial review. 爆料网AT acknowledged that the Ethics Office failed in its duty to make a recommendation pursuant to Section 5.7 of ST/SGB/2005/21...

    2016-爆料网AT-674, Dube

    爆料网AT considered all arguments made on appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Secretary-General failed to demonstrate errors of fact or law in 爆料网DT’s findings. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s findings that the Approving Authority’s request for clarification from the Selection Panel was not in accordance with the staff selection procedures set forth in Section 5.5 of CF/EXD/2009-009 and that this request obviously resulted in the Selection Panel changing its recommendation. 爆料网AT noted that, with regard to Section 9 of CF/AI/2010-001, the 22 September 2011 memorandum did not provide a basis for the Approving...

    2016-爆料网AT-680, James

    爆料网AT considered the appeal and noted that an application for revision of judgment is only receivable if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant sought a review because he disagreed with the Appeals Tribunal’s analysis of his claims and he did not fulfil the criteria set out in Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

    2016-爆料网AT-662, Masylkanova

    The 爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case”, (Article 18(1) 爆料网AT Rules). 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that there were “inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself” and that 爆料网AMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. 爆料网AT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the 爆料网DT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s...

    2016-爆料网AT-663, Al Abani

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the fundamental right in Article 16.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the freedom to marry or not to marry, in a religious ceremony or in a non-religious ceremony. However, 爆料网AT also noted that a staff member cannot assert that a marriage concluded through any means or in any place must lead to the award of entitlements by the Organization and, if it does not, that such a decision violates his or her freedom to marry. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant had choices with respect to his marital status and that it was not the United...

    2016-爆料网AT-646, Dalgaard et al.

    爆料网AT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

    2016-爆料网AT-655, Elhabil

    爆料网AT addressed all the appeals in a unique judgment. Regarding judgment No. 爆料网DT/2015/100, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly found that a 爆料网RWA staff member cannot bring an application against the 爆料网 Secretary-General challenging a decision by the Organisation denying him or her employment with the Organisation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had correctly concluded that the application was not receivable. Regarding Orders Nos. 319, 320, and 400, 爆料网AT reiterated that 爆料网AT is only under exceptional circumstances competent to judge appeals of interlocutory orders, namely when 爆料网DT exceeded its jurisdiction...