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 711 - 720 of 1006
    2020-爆料网AT-1039, Lynn

    爆料网AT held that the report of the JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case must be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to the JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and the WMO, signed on 20 January 2020 and effective the same date. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT for adjudication as a result of said Agreement on the extension of the...

    2020-爆料网AT-1038, Rixen

    爆料网AT made no finding regarding whether the WMO JAB erred on its finding of receivability, given its decision to remand the matter to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the report of WMO JAB was not a decision resulting from a neutral first instance process and therefore could not be appealed to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that such a case had to be remanded for proper consideration by a neutral process that produces a record of the proceedings and a written decision. 爆料网AT noted that the case could not be remanded to WMO JAB, whose functions were removed by Agreement between the 爆料网 and WMO dated 20 January 2020. 爆料网AT...

    2020-爆料网AT-1034, El Sehemawi

    爆料网AT held that AJAB’s interim report did not constitute a neutral first instance process which included a written record and a written decision providing reasons, fact and law and as such, did not conform to the requirements of Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute or the Agreement between the 爆料网 and ICAO. 爆料网AT held that at ICAO there was no neutral first instance process including a decision. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General of ICAO, who issued the contested decision, was not neutral, but a party to proceedings. 爆料网AT held that under such circumstances it was not satisfied that the essential...

    2020-爆料网AT-1027 , Belkhabbaz (formerly Oummih)

    爆料网AT considered an application for execution of judgment No. 2018-爆料网AT-873 by Ms Belkhabbaz, requesting that 爆料网AT should order specific performance remedies against the individual against whom she had pursued her complaint. 爆料网AT held that, under Section 5. 18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Office of Human Resources Management (ASG/OHRM) had the discretion to decide whether or not to institute disciplinary measures, managerial actions, or administrative actions. 爆料网AT held that the managerial action upon which the ASG/OHRM decided complied with 爆料网AT’s direction in...

    2020-爆料网AT-1026, Diallo

    爆料网AT considered an application revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-936 by Mr Diallo. 爆料网AT held that Mr Diallo failed to establish the statutory conditions that had to be fulfilled before a judgment could be revised, namely there was no discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and to him. 爆料网AT held that an application for revision of a judgment that does not meet the statutory prerequisites cannot be a collateral means of attack on the judgment or allowed to be the second right of final appeal. 爆料网AT dismissed the application for revision.

    2020-爆料网AT-1010, Richards

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant had failed to follow the procedural requirements for an appeal. 爆料网AT noted that the Appellant contested a decision of the Pension Board, which had not been subject to review or appeal, neither by the Staff Pension Committee nor by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Pension Board. 爆料网AT held that it was not allowed to intervene in matters that had not previously been subject to internal reassessment by the Pension Fund. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal as not receivable.

    2020-爆料网AT-1031, Abrate et al

    爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT held that the JAB process did not constitute a neutral first instance process that includes a decision, and therefore was not appealable to 爆料网AT. 爆料网AT held that the Secretary-General of WMO, who issued the contested decision, could not be regarded as a neutral body as he is a party. 爆料网AT remanded the case to 爆料网DT, which constituted the neutral first instance process for WMO.

    2020-爆料网AT-1009, El Shaer

    爆料网AT considered an application for interpretation and another for execution of judgment filed by the staff member. Regarding the application for interpretation of judgment, 爆料网AT held that the judgment was clear in its meaning and written in plain and unambiguous language, which left no reasonable doubt as to what it meant, requiring no interpretation. Regarding the application for execution of judgment, 爆料网AT held that there was no need to order execution, namely the Appellant’s reinstatement, since the judgment had already been fully executed by means of compensation, rather than rescission...

    2020-爆料网AT-1005, Barri

    爆料网AT did not find that an oral hearing would assist it in resolving the issues on appeal and denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that an explicit decision of the Secretary-General in favor of the staff member is usually necessary before 爆料网DT may conclude that the deadlines for management evaluation have been extended by the Secretary-General; a mere request for assistance from the Ombudsman’s Office is not sufficient in this regard. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT correctly concluded that the application was non-receivable ratione materiae, as the Appellant had failed to submit a...

    2020-爆料网AT-1004, Larriera

    爆料网AT held that 爆料网JSPF’s contention that Ms. Larriera had known since 2003 that she was not recognized as a widow by 爆料网JSPF, interpreted as having the meaning that she should have timely filed her request for review and subsequently her appeal to 爆料网AT at that time, was without merit. In the absence of an explicit decision by the Administration denying her the entitlement, 爆料网AT held that Ms Larriera could not and ought not to be expected to presume that such a decision was taken. 爆料网AT held that Ms. Larriera’s request for review was receivable ratione materiae and that Ms. Larriera’s appeal was...