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 561 - 570 of 1006
    2017-爆料网AT-801, Faye

    爆料网AT considered that at the time of the elections, there was no law that prevented the staff members from being elected to the 爆料网SPC once they met the prerequisites for election, which they did. 爆料网AT held that both staff members were duly elected members of the 爆料网SPC and that as a direct consequence of their election, they had the same rights and privileges as other elected members, and which could not be restricted or denied. 爆料网AT granted the appeals and ordered that the staff members be given access to all relevant Pension Board documents and be allowed to participate and function as elected...

    2017-爆料网AT-804, Fitsum

    爆料网AT held that in failing to file an appeal brief contesting the decision taken against her, the Appellant did not discharge her burden to demonstrate that the impugned judgment erred on a question of law or fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT noted that there appeared to be an implied administrative decision when the Appellant did not receive any decision on her first written demand in 2011 and that that application also seemed not to be receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-789, Barakat

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had not complied with his obligations under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that there were no errors of law, fact, or procedure in the 爆料网RWA DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that under the relevant Circular, the Administration only had a duty to consider the Appellant’s request to be transferred to a certain compound, but not his wish to be transferred to a certain school located in that compound. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment.

    2017-爆料网AT-790, Anshasi

    爆料网AT held that it was not persuaded that 爆料网RWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网AT held that there was no reason to differ from 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that 爆料网RWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with 爆料网RWA. 爆料网AT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

    2017-爆料网AT-792, Chhikara

    爆料网AT considered appeals from both the Secretary-General and Mr Chhikara. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred when it considered that it did not need the missing evidence of the 25 situation questions and their “key” answers, which directly related to the written test which Mr Chhikara failed. 爆料网AT held that, by rejecting Mr Chhikara’s request for the missing evidence and judging the case without it, 爆料网DT failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and also committed an error in procedure such as to affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT noted that the interests of justice and judicial economy may be...

    2017-爆料网AT-793, Muhsen

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was defective in that it failed to invoke the jurisdiction of 爆料网AT under Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute by not asserting that 爆料网DT had either exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, erred on a question of law, committed an error of procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case, or erred a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant also failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(2) of the 爆料网AT RoP by not providing a brief explaining the legal basis of any of...

    2017-爆料网AT-782, Muindi

    爆料网AT held that the summary dismissal decision was unlawful because the due process rights under IMO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules were substantially violated. The Appellant had been charged with misconduct in the form of fraudulent activities undertaken to gain diplomatic accreditation, namely giving instructions to append an electronic signature to an official IMO communication without authorization or instruction by that colleague and misrepresenting his contractual status as internationally recruited in that communication. Noting that the Secretary-General of IMO considered the...

    2017-爆料网AT-771, Al-Mussader

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not make any errors of law or fact in dismissing the Appellant’s application. 爆料网AT found no reason to differ from the conclusion of 爆料网RWA DT, that 爆料网RWA could not have considered the Appellant as having the requisite international experience. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT gave careful and fair consideration to the Appellant’s arguments regarding the required international experience for the post. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of proving through clear and convincing evidence that he was denied a fair chance of selection. 爆料网AT held that the...

    2017-爆料网AT-772, Kadri

    On the Appellant’s claim for his name not to appear in the 爆料网AT judgment, 爆料网AT held that, due to the fact that his name had been in the public domain for a long time as a result of the publication of many court documents related to his cases before 爆料网DT and 爆料网AT, it would be pointless to order redaction. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to give any compelling reason as to why confidentiality should be granted and denied his request for confidentiality. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT fully and fairly considered the merits of his case and was in no doubt as to its substance. 爆料网AT held that there was no...

    2017-爆料网AT-775, Onifade

    爆料网AT considered Mr Onifade’s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-爆料网AT-668. 爆料网AT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. 爆料网AT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute and Article 24 of the 爆料网AT RoP. 爆料网AT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...