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 691 - 700 of 1006
    2020-爆料网AT-1077, Domitila Icha

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. 爆料网AT held that, regarding the question of whether 爆料网DT failed to address the Appellant’s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that 爆料网DT erred in fact or in law about this issue. 爆料网AT held, however, that 爆料网DT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected...

    2020-爆料网AT-1049, Kisia

    爆料网AT held that exceptional circumstances existed on the basis that the Appellant was suffering from a medical condition, hospitalized and unable to file the appeal on a timely basis. 爆料网AT waived the deadline for appeal and held the appeal to be receivable. 爆料网AT held that, in his appeal, the Appellant largely repeated the submissions and allegations raised before 爆料网DT, without identifying the specific errors of law or errors of fact that resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. On the Appellant’s claims relating to the use of and access to the closed-circuit television (CCTV) video...

    2020-爆料网AT-1054, Ross

    On the Applicant’s claim that 爆料网DT committed an error of procedure by not allowing him to submit an affidavit from his former supervisor, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT properly exercised its broad discretion under Article 18(1) of its Rules of Procedure in determining the admissibility as well as the evidentiary value and weight of the proffered affidavit. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s conclusions were consistent with the evidence. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proof for demonstrating an error in the judgment such as to warrant its reversal. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1061, Abu Osba

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT held that an oral hearing was not necessary and would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case as the Appellant had not provided grounds for an oral hearing beyond seeking to confront the witnesses and comment on existing evidence. Whilst 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to identify any errors of law or fact by 爆料网RWA DT as required under Art 2(1) 爆料网AT Statute, 爆料网AT did go on to consider his appeal as he was not represented. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had correctly applied the standard of review for disciplinary cases and that 爆料网RWA DT’s exercise...

    2020-爆料网AT-1067, Krioutchkov

    爆料网AT held that there was nothing in the applicable law in force at the time of the events which formed a basis for the Administration’s practice of removing the candidates’ names from the language roster once they had been recruited or placed against a position. 爆料网AT held that the removal of a candidate from the roster prevented the Administration from evaluating and reassigning or selecting a candidate for a similar post in another duty station. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant’s removal from the roster adversely impacted his potential ability for mobility and for obtaining additional incentives...

    2020-爆料网AT-1068, Porras

    爆料网AT held that as allegations of improper motive, bias, or prejudice as reasons for the unlawfulness of the non-renewal were not raised before 爆料网DT for its consideration, 爆料网AT should not consider them. 爆料网AT held that the exceptional circumstances that were required to allow additional pleadings to be considered, were not present. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding that the Organisation properly exercised its discretion in not renewing the Appellant’s fixed-term appointment. 爆料网AT held that, in situations of a staff member being declared persona non grata by a host country, it was the duty of...

    2020-爆料网AT-1032, Rolli

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-952 by Mr Rolli. Mr Rolli contended that the remand order issued by 爆料网AT, and in particular its reference to the need to have Mr Rolli’s appeal considered by a neural first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the JAB to function as a neutral first instance process, constituted new facts that required 爆料网AT to revise its judgment. 爆料网AT held that neither the remand order of 爆料网AT nor the need to have the Appellant’s appeal considered by a neutral first instance body, coupled with the objective inability of the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1036, Mansour

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT failed to address some issues before it, in respect of which the Appellant is entitled to a reasoned decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT erred in declining the Appellant’s implicit request for a hearing in person, at least without having considered it and given reasons. 爆料网AT held that the termination of the Appellant’s appointment could not be assessed as hasty, premature, or arbitrary, with particular reference to the Medical Board process. 爆料网AT held that any opportunity of the Appellant’s appointment to that vacancy had therefore passed, irrespective of her...

    2020-爆料网AT-1037, Yabowork

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT’s language, which was strongly critical of the Appellant, was unwarranted. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in finding that the decision to discontinue the payment of her SPA was a legitimate exercise of the Administration’s discretion, as the Appellant no longer met the requirements for it. 爆料网AT held that the discontinuation of the SPA was justified in view of the Administration’s obligation and right to correct such an erroneous situation. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-1048, Ross

    The Applicant sought revision of judgment 2019-爆料网AT-944 pursuant to Article 11(1), which sets out strict and exceptional criteria that must be met. The Applicant alleged he became aware, in January 2020, that the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) of 爆料网HCR had not made a finding on whether the hiring manager’s conduct amounted to misconduct. The Applicant contended that the Respondent had made misleading comments to 爆料网AT, which led the latter to erroneously conclude that the IGO had investigated and determined that no misconduct had occurred. In addition, the Applicant sought leave to submit...