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 701 - 710 of 1006
    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-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-1022, El Shanti

    爆料网AT considered two appeals (consolidated) by Mr ElShanti of judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/051 and judgment No. 爆料网RWA/DT/2019/065 respectively. On the consolidation of the cases, 爆料网AT held that 爆料网RWA DT had broad discretion in managing its cases and that it would only intervene in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting a party’s right to produce evidence. Accordingly, 爆料网AT rejected Mr ElShanti’s arguments against consolidation. 爆料网AT held that there was no merit to Mr ElShanti’s claims that the characterization of the impugned administrative decision was incorrect, noting that 爆料网RWA...

    2020-爆料网AT-1020, Dibs

    爆料网AT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2017-爆料网AT-798 by Mr. Dibs. 爆料网AT granted in part the application for execution of judgment and ordered 爆料网RWA to fully execute the judgment within 30 calendar days, advising that failure to comply with the deadline would result in a finding of manifest abuse of process, the award of costs, and potentially, a referral for accountability. 爆料网AT considered that the request for moral and pecuniary damages did not fall within the scope of the application.

    2020-爆料网AT-1015, Handy

    爆料网AT held that there was no express rescission of the impugned decision by the Administration. 爆料网AT held that monthly renewals pending the outcome of the rebuttal of a performance evaluation did not resolve the complaint of the non-renewal of the fixed-term appointment. 爆料网AT held that the monthly renewals did not rescind or supersede the impugned decision and the application could not be considered moot. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in its decision, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal, vacated the 爆料网DT judgment, and remanded the matter to 爆料网DT for proper...

    2020-爆料网AT-1014, Chhikara

    爆料网AT held that the reason upon which 爆料网DT decided not to rescind the contested decision, i. e. the lapse of time, was insufficient justification. 爆料网AT held that, given the grossly negligent illegalities in which the selection process was conducted as found by 爆料网DT, rescission of the contested decision was mandatory and could not be avoided on the basis of the excessive length of time between the filing of the application and the 爆料网DT judgment. 爆料网AT held that allowing the decision not to select the Appellant to remain in effect as if it was correct, despite its clear illegality, was not...

    2020-爆料网AT-1013, Belsito

    A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by 爆料网DT. 爆料网DT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. 爆料网AT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the 爆料网DT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-1040, Robinson

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in the amount of compensation it awarded, having considered all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating factor of the Appellant securing new employment. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not commit an error of law or make manifestly unreasonable factual findings in its award of financial damages. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT did not err in law, and followed binding 爆料网AT precedent, by refusing to award moral damages based solely on the Appellant’s testimony. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant had had the opportunity before 爆料网DT to apply to adduce the relevant evidence but had...

    2020-爆料网AT-1024, Nyawa

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr. Nyawa. 爆料网AT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Nyawa committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. 爆料网AT held that the established facts amounted to misconduct on the part of Mr. Nyawa. 爆料网AT disagreed with 爆料网DT that a written censure was subsumed by the sanction of deferment for eligibility for promotion, however, 爆料网AT found that 爆料网DT’s holding that the deferment for eligibility for promotion was sufficient sanction was not a manifestly unreasonable decision warranting 爆料网AT intervention...

    2020-爆料网AT-1012, Heftberger

    爆料网AT denied the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. 爆料网AT held, recalling the Spinardi jurisprudence (judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-957), that the decision on the Appellant’s complaints was not made utilizing a neutral first instance process as required jurisdictionally by Article 2. 10 of the 爆料网AT Statute. 爆料网AT noted that the appealed decision was made by the ICAO Secretary-General whose own earlier decision(s) the Appellant had challenged. 爆料网AT allowed the appeal and set aside the ICAO Secretary-General’s and/or the AJAB’s...