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 721 - 730 of 1006
    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-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-1000, Ross

    爆料网AT considered: 1) three motions filed by Mr Ross, for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, for additional pleadings, and for submission of applicable legal norms; 2) an application to file a Friend-of-the-Court Brief by the 爆料网HCR Staff Council; 3) an appeal by Mr Ross; and 4) an appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the motion for temporary suspension of proceedings and “Comments on the Respondent’s comments”, 爆料网AT held that there was no merit in it since the factual circumstances of the instant case were different from those he seemed to have...

    2020-爆料网AT-1001, Applicant

    爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. 爆料网AT found no errors in the 爆料网DT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. 爆料网AT found no errors in 爆料网DT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 爆料网AT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

    2020-爆料网AT-996, Oglesby

    爆料网AT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-914 from Mr Oglesby. 爆料网AT held that Mr Oglesby failed to establish the required grounds for a revision of judgment, namely the discovery of a decisive fact that was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to 爆料网AT and the party applying for revision. 爆料网AT noted that it had concluded in the impugned judgment that it was unable to apply the 爆料网 Charter or the UDHR directly, or strike down clear 爆料网JSPF Regulations. 爆料网AT opined that it was within the combined powers of the 爆料网JSPF, the Secretary-General and the General...

    2020-爆料网AT-997, Clemente

    爆料网AT considered an application by 爆料网JSPB for interpretation of judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-912 related to the calculation and payment of interest. 爆料网AT held that there was nothing unclear or ambiguous about the terms of the order and that the application for interpretation was inadmissible on those grounds alone. 爆料网AT opined that, in actuality, the 爆料网JSPB sought to appeal the judgment on the grounds that 爆料网AT erred in making an award of interest, which 爆料网JSPB believed was inconsistent with its Regulations. Noting that judgments of 爆料网AT are final and without appeal, 爆料网AT held that this attempt to...

    2020-爆料网AT-999, Wilson

    爆料网AT considered an application for correction of judgment for judgment No. 2019-爆料网AT-940 filed by Mr Wilson in order to reflect a correction of dates that 爆料网DT had made to its own judgment. 爆料网AT held that it was necessary to correct the date of the receipt of a Management Evaluation Unit response, a crucial factor for calculating time limits under the 爆料网DT Statute, as, without the correction, the Appellant’s application to 爆料网DT would have been not receivable ratione temporis. 爆料网AT granted the Appellant’s application and ordered the correction of the 爆料网AT judgment.

    2020-爆料网AT-987, Avramoski

    爆料网AT held that there was no evidence before 爆料网DT that the EOD date or the refusal to amend it had a direct impact or legal consequence on the Appellant’s terms of appointment or contract and therefore, it was not an administrative decision. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in finding the application was receivable based on the relevant administrative decision being the refusal to amend the EOD date. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was correct in dismissing the application as beyond its temporal jurisdiction, as the Appellant’s application to 爆料网DT was filed more than three years after the impugned decision and...

    2020-爆料网AT-990, Mpacko

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered the Appellant’s daughters applications for intervention which argued that they had been deprived of their right to education due to their mother’s arbitrary separation from service, as their mother lost her only main source of income, including the education grant, and could not support their education. 爆料网AT held that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the 爆料网DT Statute, the daughters did not fall within the categories of persons who had the standing to intervene, and denied the applications for intervention. On the merits, 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed...

    2020-爆料网AT-1011, Abu Fardeh

    爆料网RWA DT did not exceed its competence when assessing whether the decision to convene a medical board was lawful. The decision to convene a Medical Board five months after the service-incurred-injury in order to examine his fitness for continued service was reasonable. 爆料网RWA DT erred in deciding that the decision to convene a medical board less than five months after the Appellant’s service-incurred injury was unlawful. 爆料网RWA DT erred in law and exceeded its competence by challenging the authority of the Medical Board’s conclusion without clear and convincing medical evidence, by placing...