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 601 - 610 of 1006
    2018-爆料网AT-887, Elayyan

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence, his appeal, and the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal. 爆料网AT found that the Applicant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify the filing of any additional documentary evidence and denied his motion. 爆料网AT held that the claim in Appellant’s Appeal was not initially brought before 爆料网RWA DT and could not be introduced for the first time before 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General's cross-appeal was entirely without merit and that 爆料网RWA DT was correct to find that the irregularity...

    2018-爆料网AT-881, Mansour

    爆料网AT considered the content of the Appellant’s appeal, the 爆料网RWA DT judgment, and the Appellant’s request for compensation for material and moral damages and costs. 爆料网AT found that the Appellant’s appeal was defective in that it failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2(1) of the Statute as forming the legal basis of his appeal. 爆料网AT also held that there was no error in the 爆料网RWA DT’s findings that the Administration’s decision not to confirm the Appellant’s appointment was solely based on his performance and that his allegations of harassment and discrimination...

    2018-爆料网AT-880, Munyan

    爆料网AT considered the appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General’s appeal was in direct conflict with his submissions to 爆料网DT. While the Secretary-General acknowledged procedural irregularities by the Hiring Manager to 爆料网DT, in his appeal he argued that no irregularities happened in removing the Applicant’s name from the list and that the Hiring Manager was entitled to exercise her discretion and correct her mistakes after further assessing the candidate’s qualifications. 爆料网AT held that no evidence was presented to 爆料网DT of a second assessment by the Hiring Manager or...

    2018-爆料网AT-879, Nimer

    爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit an error of procedure such as to affect the decision of the case by failing to order the Agency to allow the participation of the Appellant representative in the oral hearing or by failing to accommodate the latter’s employment situation. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not err on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision when it determined that the Head of Education Department (H/ED) had not received the Appellant’s request for SLWOP and, consequently, that there had not...

    2018-爆料网AT-877, Atome

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that neither the 爆料网AT Statute nor the 爆料网AT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. 爆料网AT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

    2018-爆料网AT-875, Kellie

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal. 爆料网AT considered the criteria set out in Article 2 of the 爆料网AT Statute to determine whether any alleged errors of law and fact resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT found that there was no evidence that the decision to abolish the post encumbered by the Appellant was unlawful. 爆料网AT also found that 爆料网RWA DT’s decision was correctly based on the applicable law and available evidence. To that end, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to establish that the 爆料网RWA DT committed any error, whether of law, fact, or procedure. 爆料网AT further noted that...

    2018-爆料网AT-863, Afawubo

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT refused the Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Additional Pleadings. 爆料网AT referred to Article 3(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Decision No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal, which provides that it may grant such a motion only if there are exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in the present case. 爆料网AT also referred to the transitional measures provided by General Assembly Resolution 63/253 and Article 2(7) of the 爆料网DT Statute, which notes that...

    2018-爆料网AT-874, Kebede

    The only issue in contention in this appeal is whether the 爆料网DT erred on a question of law or fact when it found that the harm to the Appellant was sufficiently evidenced to justify an award of compensation for moral damages. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT based the award of compensation for harm both on the evidence produced by the individual and what it described as “pre-existing distress that the individual was already suffering from” which “was exacerbated by the unlawful decision to refuse his request” to investigate the allegations of discrimination. 爆料网DT was to determine whether Mr. Kebede...

    2018-爆料网AT-871, Reda

    爆料网AT rejected the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in the Appellant’s claim that he should be considered a 爆料网 staff member because he worked with 爆料网OPS for over three years. 爆料网AT concluded that 爆料网DT correctly decided that the application was not receivable ratione personae. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.