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 651 - 660 of 1006
    2019-爆料网AT-950, Diop

    爆料网AT held that the case was fully and fairly considered by 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT found no error of law or fact in the 爆料网DT decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT thoroughly considered the material facts of the case at issue and found that the qualification the Appellant had attained was not the equivalent of the required first-level university degree. 爆料网AT held that there was no error of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT conclusions were consistent with the evidence and that the Appellant did not put forward any persuasive grounds to warrant interference by 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-952, Rolli

    爆料网AT held that the findings of the WMO JAB were not adequately articulated in the written record; it did not furnish a written decision dealing fully with the factual and legal issues. 爆料网AT held that because the factual basis for the JAB’s determination that the summary dismissal was justified was not clear and in the JAB report, it was not possible to establish whether the JAB made the alleged errors on the relevant questions of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT held that because the JAB limited its inquiry to determine whether the decision was motivated by prejudice...

    2019-爆料网AT-954, Ademagic et al

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT declined the Appellants’ request for an oral hearing based on the length and complexity of the background of the appeal and that it was not persuaded that it was in the interests of justice to hold one. On the Appellants’ argument that 爆料网AT had erred previously in establishing the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, 爆料网AT noted that they were effectively requesting a revision of two previous 爆料网AT judgments and held that they were time-barred from doing so. 爆料网AT held that the criteria in permanent appointment conversion cases, as previously...

    2019-爆料网AT-957, Spinardi

    爆料网AT was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was only advisory or recommendatory. 爆料网AT noted that the SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he is both the employer’s representative and the original decision-maker. 爆料网AT held that it was the Secretary-General of IMO, who was not neutral in the first instance process, who took the final decision. 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-958, Dispert & Ho

    爆料网AT considered the Appellants’ consolidated appeals against the rejection of their requests to be upgraded to a higher level. 爆料网AT held that it was not satisfied that the essential elements were present to enable the IMO SAB to take a decision within the meaning of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that, even if the SAB issuance was a decision, it was nevertheless only advisory or recommendatory. 爆料网AT noted that SAB gave advice to the Secretary-General of IMO, who could not be regarded as a neutral part of the process as he was both the employer’s representative and the original...

    2019-爆料网AT-940, Wilson

    爆料网AT held that it was clear from the record that 爆料网DT did not consider the whole of the evidence in arriving at its decisions and that its determination of the facts was unsustainable. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT based its finding of bias on selected extracts of a report from the Ethics Office which neither positively established bias nor explained how, if at all, the potential bias to which it referred was connected to the selection process. 爆料网AT held that the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence required the case to be remanded to the 爆料网DT for a rehearing de...

    2019-爆料网AT-942, El Shaer

    爆料网AT held that the staff member had not voluntarily absented himself from duty. Rather, he reported for duty throughout at the office he had been re-assigned to, his whereabouts were known to the Agency and he clearly did not intend to abandon his position. As to the staff member’s refusal to report to his original position as instructed, 爆料网AT held that his conduct might have been a performance or conduct issue open to censure or discipline. However, 爆料网AT held that the Agency failed to determine if the conduct constituted insubordination and, if so, a proportional sanction. Instead, 爆料网AT held...

    2019-爆料网AT-943, Hassan

    爆料网AT noted that the Order under appeal was an interlocutory decision because it struck out the matter, which, 爆料网AT clarified, did not mean that 爆料网DT had dismissed the application. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable, noting that the Appellant could supplement her application with 爆料网DT within 90 days of the date of the publication of the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2019-爆料网AT-944, Ross

    爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings on the basis that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances. 爆料网AT rejected the Appellant’s request for costs as there was no reason to believe that the submissions of the Secretary-General were not made in good faith or were an abuse of process. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not have a right to promotion but only a right to be considered for promotion. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant received full and fair consideration for the position. 爆料网AT also affirmed 爆料网DT’s application of the priority consideration...

    2019-爆料网AT-946, Tosi

    Following an appeal by the Appellant and the Secretary-General, there was a further cross-appeal by the Appellant. As a preliminary issue, 爆料网AT dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal as not receivable since the Appellant has already had the opportunity to file his own independent appeal and the cross-appeal seemed to be an attempt to complement his appeal. On the Secretary-General’s appeal in Case No. 爆料网DT/NBI/2015/095 related to the issue settlement agreement, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred on a matter of law on the receivability of the application, since it based its finding on the merits as a...