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 621 - 630 of 1006
    2018-爆料网AT-839, Hamdan

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that 爆料网RWA’s disciplinary system provides that the Commissioner-General may only impose such disciplinary measures on current staff members. 爆料网AT accordingly found that 爆料网RWA DT erred in finding that the Commissioner-General was entitled to impose the disciplinary measure of a fine after the Appellant’s employment ended and held that the disciplinary measure had to be rescinded. With respect to the Appellant’s request for compensation, 爆料网AT noted that it may only award compensation for harm in cases where the individual presented evidence, other than...

    2018-爆料网AT-849, Kule Kongba

    爆料网AT held that the lack of the nationality requirement on the Appellant’s part constituted a valid reason for not renewing his fixed-term appointment. Further, that the Administration previously granting the Appellant successive contract extensions did not give grounds for an expectancy of renewal unless the Administration had made him an express promise in writing, which it did not. Moreover, 爆料网AT noted that an Administration has a duty to rectify its own errors and, when it commits an irregularity in the recruitment procedure, it is inclined to take appropriate measures to correct the...

    2018-爆料网AT-850, Zama

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to 爆料网DT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. 爆料网AT also agreed with 爆料网DT’s finding that 爆料网FPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...

    2018-爆料网AT-851, Nemrawi

    爆料网AT considered the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the appeal was defective because the Appellant failed to identify any of the five grounds of appeal set out in Article 2.1 as forming the legal basis of his appeal. 爆料网AT found that he had not complied with his statutory obligation as an appellant, in that nothing that he pleaded was capable of demonstrating that 爆料网RWA DT committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT also found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error in 爆料网RWA DT’s finding and had not provided any evidence in support of his claims that the Agency’s...

    2018-爆料网AT-837, Isteti

    爆料网AT considered the appeal, which was not accompanied by a legal brief explaining the basis of the appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant failed to identify by citation to any provision in Article 2. 1 of the Statute, the grounds for his appeal, and was required to do so. Accordingly, 爆料网AT found the appeal to be defective and not allowed. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed 爆料网RWA DT’s judgment.

    2018-爆料网AT-843, Kozul-Wright

    爆料网AT held that, when responding to requests for the waiver of an official’s immunity, the Organisation must comply with its legal obligations to the requesting Member State under the relevant international instruments, which limit immunity to official acts and oblige the Secretary-General to cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities to facilitate the proper administration of justice and to prevent the occurrence of any abuse in connection with the privileges and immunities. 爆料网AT noted that the Secretary-General is best placed to appreciate the nature of the Organisation’s...

    2018-爆料网AT-845, Awe

    爆料网AT considered the staff member’s application for correction of judgment. The staff member claimed that there was a mistake in paragraph 2 of the former 爆料网AT judgment, contending that it erroneously refers to the COS instead of the CMS. The staff member also contended that the reference to MINUSCA on page 4 is erroneous since the mission he was assigned to was MINUSMA. 爆料网AT noted that paragraph 2 of the judgment merely quoted the facts “as found by the Dispute Tribunal”, with a footnote reference to the paragraphs quoted from the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT further noted that the Secretary-General...

    2018-爆料网AT-846, Muindi

    The Applicant requests clarification as to which date should be considered his separation date from the IMO for purposes of determining his separation entitlements when the IMO Secretary-General opted for in-lieu compensation of 12 months’ net base salary at the rate in effect in March 2016. His request for interpretation refers to the legal consequences of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-782 regarding his separation date which goes beyond an application for interpretation of the meaning and scope of a judgment provided under Article 11(3) of the Statute and Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure. 爆料网AT...

    2018-爆料网AT-826, Ocokoru

    The staff member filed an application for execution of judgment No. 2015-爆料网AT-604 (Ocokoru). 爆料网AT noted that in judgment 2015-爆料网AT-604, it did not make any order affecting the 爆料网DT judgment that was appealed but simply decided that the Secretary-General’s appeal was not receivable. 爆料网AT held that the execution of the 爆料网DT judgment remained within the jurisdiction of 爆料网DT and, as such, it was not competent to grant the staff member’s application. 爆料网AT observed that Article 27 (Execution of judgments) of the 爆料网AT Rules of Procedure, when read together with Article 11.4 of the 爆料网AT Statute...