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 551 - 560 of 1006
    2016-爆料网AT-612, Dawas

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General. 爆料网AT confirmed the findings and conclusions of the 爆料网RWA DT judgment under appeal about the illegality of the closure of the investigation into the staff member’s complaints. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had thoroughly conducted the judicial review of the challenged administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had conducted a legitimate exercise when it drew its conclusions from the investigation report. 爆料网AT held that the irregularities, such as the failure to address the specific harassment complaint, several examples of abuse of...

    2016-爆料网AT-614, Roberts

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General challenging the compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT held that there was enough evidence produced that the amount of compensation for moral damages had been paid into the staff member’s bank account. 爆料网AT held that the payment of the compensation constituted an acceptance of the Secretary-General of the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was, therefore, moot. 爆料网AT rejected the staff member’s claim for costs against the Secretary-General because of abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that although the Secretary-General’s appeal had no merit, it...

    2016-爆料网AT-615, Ejaz, Elizabeth, Cherian and Cone

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that there was no need for further evidence. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had erred in law and procedure when it did not consider the Appellant’s peculiar circumstances by remanding their case to the NYGSCAC for reconsideration. 爆料网AT held that it was impossible for the Appellant’s job descriptions to be finalized, since not only the Appellants Ejaz and Elizabeth, but also their supervisors, have all retired from the Organisation, while the Appellants Cherian and Cone have passed away. 爆料网AT held that the case was similar to the related case disposed...

    2016-爆料网AT-611, Chaaban

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly determined that the Appellant had failed to comply with the time limits set forth in former Area Staff Rule 111.3, making his application not receivable as it pertained to his challenge to the decision denying eligibility for the post of Database Manager. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant had never sought review of the decision to separate him from service, failing to comply with Article 8.1(c) of the 爆料网RWA DT Statute, which requires that an applicant must submit the contested administrative decision for decision review first. 爆料网AT affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s finding...

    2017-爆料网AT-805, Gorelova

    爆料网AT held that the requirements for 爆料网AT jurisdiction were fulfilled. 爆料网AT held that the appeal to AJAB was time-barred and also, as the Appellant failed to request administrative review under ICAO Staff Rule 111. 1(5), the appeal to AJAB was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that a later request by the Appellant was not relevant to the question of receivability because although the later request was phrased differently, it was based on the same factual and substantive situation that had already been assessed under her previous, unsuccessful request for review of her post description...

    2017-爆料网AT-808, Likukela

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied her motion to supply additional filings. 爆料网AT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-809, Mbaa

    爆料网AT held that there was no basis for receiving the Appellant’s motion for additional pleadings (such as exceptional circumstances), that the motion raised no new or compelling arguments and, accordingly, dismissed the motion. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the application was time-barred and not receivable as a result of the Appellant’s failure to file his application within the established time limits. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had been provided two opportunities to make his case before 爆料网DT and on both occasions, he failed to provide the information. 爆料网AT held that failing...

    2017-爆料网AT-797, Benamar

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by 爆料网DT (by audio conference) as verified by 爆料网AT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist 爆料网AT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant’s motion for additional hearings, 爆料网AT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

    2017-爆料网AT-799, Bourne

    爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, as the Appellant had failed to request a review of the 爆料网JSPF decision before appealing to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT remanded the matter for a hearing before the Standing Committee, treating the appeal as if correctly and timely filed as a request for decision review.

    2017-爆料网AT-800, King

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione temporis, as he did not file it within the prescribed time limits. 爆料网AT noted that even if the Appellant had requested a waiver of the time limit on the basis of exceptional circumstances, his appeal was time-barred by Article 7.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute and was therefore not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.