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 671 - 680 of 1006
    2019-爆料网AT-923, Baramky

    爆料网AT held that the first time the Appellant’s claim for implementation of the sanction (an apology to the Appellant) was raised was on appeal and that it was therefore not receivable, however, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant was not barred from requesting 爆料网RWA to enforce its letter of censure. On the Appellant’s claim for moral damages, 爆料网AT found no error in 爆料网RWA DT’s order denying the Appellant’s request for moral damages since there was no evidence of harm. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2019-爆料网AT-925, Kortes

    爆料网AT considered the Secretary-General’s appeal and Ms Kortes’ cross-appeal. 爆料网AT held that the issue was whether 爆料网DT erred in concluding that the Administration was estopped from correcting its mistake by finding that Ms Kortes was not eligible for ASHI, having advised her in 2011 that she could not avail herself of the buy-in option. Noting that the Administration’s error was to inform Ms Kortes that she could buy-in to ASHI, based on a misunderstanding of the date she joined the Organisation, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT committed an error of law in coming to its conclusion that five years was...

    2019-爆料网AT-926, Ross 2021-03-18

    爆料网AT considered both an appeal from the Secretary-General and an appeal from Mr Ross. 爆料网AT considered Mr Ross’s request for consideration by a full bench and held that he had no standing to make such a request and that the case did not raise any significant question of law in relation to the evidentiary standard of proof of moral damages. 爆料网AT held that any irregularity (procedural or substantive) in promotion cases will only give rise to an entitlement to rescission or compensation if the staff member has a significant or foreseeable chance for promotion. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT did not err...

    2019-爆料网AT-914, Oglesby

    爆料网AT found that at the time of his separation from service, the former staff member was not married to his husband; their same-sex relationship did not enjoy similar status to marriage under the law of the US; the Regulations did not afford retrospective recognition of their marriage in 2018; and the Regulations specifically regulated the situation of the former staff member by providing for an annuity under Article 35ter. Therefore, 爆料网AT concluded that under the express terms of Articles 34 and 35, the former staff member’s spouse was not entitled to a survivor’s benefit. Nonetheless, 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-915, Yasin

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and established the critical facts of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had a broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached thereto and that 爆料网DT’s conclusion was consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT held that the 爆料网DT’s conclusion that the impugned decision was unlawful was correct, albeit for different reasoning. 爆料网AT held that the facts underpinning the administrative decision to issue the staff member a...

    2019-爆料网AT-917, Farzin

    爆料网AT held that the appeal was entirely without merit. 爆料网AT upheld the 爆料网DT finding that the application was not receivable as the Appellant had waived the relevant right and therefore did not have standing. 爆料网AT affirmed, albeit for different reasons, 爆料网DT’s final legal conclusion that the Applicant’s application was not receivable ratione materiae. 爆料网AT held that there was no reviewable administrative decision in the Appellant’s application. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had no primary legal or factual basis from which it could conclude that the Applicant had properly sought judicial review of a...

    2019-爆料网AT-918, Nadasan

    On the delay before 爆料网DT, 爆料网AT agreed that the delay was unfort爆料网ATe but held that the Applicant had not demonstrated that it was a procedural error affecting the outcome of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in exercising its case management discretion when it refused the request for an oral hearing, but that this error did not affect the decision of the case. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err as there was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant had committed sexual harassment. 爆料网AT held that the disciplinary sanction of separation from service with compensation in lieu of notice and...

    2019-爆料网AT-920, Krioutchkov

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the erroneous requirement for a perfect command of English vitiated the entire recruitment process, noting that it was a typographic error and corrective measures were taken by conducting a manual review of the personal history profile of each candidate. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in its finding that the selection process was unlawful and lacked transparency. 爆料网AT held that the need for the factual determination of all of the evidence related to the roster, placement, and removal of candidates required that the instant case be remanded to the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT...

    2019-爆料网AT-905, Ghusoub

    爆料网AT rejected the 爆料网RWA Commissioner-General's submission that the appeal was defective because it failed to identify any of the grounds of appeal prescribed by Article 2(1) of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s ground of appeal was without merit. 爆料网AT held that the Commissioner-General was obliged to calculate the Appellant’s retirement benefits in accordance with the new Staff Rule and did so correctly. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT did not commit any error of fact and law in arriving at its decision. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT judgment.

    2019-爆料网AT-907, Korduru

    爆料网AT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. 爆料网AT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
    Accountability referral: The 爆料网AT...