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 631 - 640 of 1006
    2018-爆料网AT-830, Schepens

    爆料网AT held, considering that the Appellant had elected to take a deferred retirement benefit after 1 April 2007 and not taken a withdrawal settlement, that the Fund had no discretion to make an exception under Article 24(a) of 爆料网JSPF Regulations. Regarding the submission that the Fund was in breach of a duty of good faith by not adequately informing the Appellant of the amendment and its implications, 爆料网AT held that it cannot be expected of the Fund to provide information in relation to every conceivable contingency or possibility that might or might not eventuate in the future. 爆料网AT further...

    2018-爆料网AT-828, Kallon

    爆料网AT considered an application for execution filed by Mr Kallon, seeking the execution of the non-pecuniary aspects of the 爆料网AT judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no need to order execution as the judgment had been executed in full since the order of rescission did not require execution by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that the rescission of the contested administrative decisions took effect as the direct consequence of the judgment. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in Mr Kallon’s request for execution and, therefore, dismissed his request for costs against the Secretary-General for abuse...

    2018-爆料网AT-827, Awe

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-774 filed by Mr Awe. The application was admitted in part. 爆料网AT ordered the Secretary-General to send a corrected version of the meeting minutes and of the FFP’s findings to all the recipients of the 22 January 2014 meeting minutes. 爆料网AT held that its judgment did not address the question of whether Mr Awe could request disciplinary actions against Ms Yasin, or whether he could claim compensation for procedural errors in case such actions have not been undertaken since these issues were the subject of Mr Awe’s separate...

    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...

    2018-爆料网AT-825, He

    爆料网AT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by 爆料网AT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT found no error in the 爆料网DT’s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to...

    2018-爆料网AT-824, Mbok

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in finding that the Appellant should have requested a management evaluation of decision on or before 16 December 2014 and that he did not do so until 3 January 2017. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网DT that the application was not receivable. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2018-爆料网AT-818, Kawamleh

    爆料网AT held that the issues relating to the conduct of the first test were of no relevance to the appeal and had no legal consequence because the first test and the proposed selection exercise had been cancelled. 爆料网AT agreed with 爆料网RWA DT that a selection process may only be challenged in the context of an appeal against the outcome of that process. 爆料网AT found that 爆料网RWA DT did not err in dismissing the first three grounds of the application. With respect to the second test, 爆料网AT agreed with the finding of 爆料网RWA DT that the Appellant was unable to contest the Agency’s decision to conduct a...

    2018-爆料网AT-864, Delaunay

    爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s appeal, requesting compensation for moral damages, compensation for costs for legal representation, and request for interest. 爆料网AT referred to Article 9(1)(b) of the 爆料网AT Statute, which states that compensation may only be awarded for harm suffered that is supported by evidence. 爆料网AT agreed with the ICJ Registrar that the ICJ was not responsible for the delays, but rather demonstrated good faith in bringing about an arrangement favourable to the Appellant. 爆料网AT accordingly rejected the Appellant’s request for compensation. 爆料网AT also referred to Article 9(2) of...

    2018-爆料网AT-816, Harris

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues of the appeal were clearly defined. 爆料网AT rejected to annex a medical report as evidence since the Appellant had not filed a motion, finding that the admission of documents was not in the interest of justice and the efficient and expeditious resolution of the proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the appeal was not receivable ratione materiae, considering that the 爆料网DT Statute, in unequivocal terms, provides that the decision of 爆料网DT on an application for suspension of action shall not be subject to appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the...