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 731 - 740 of 1006
    2020-爆料网AT-984, Atuya

    爆料网AT held that while there may have been an error in the misfiling of the Appellant’s rebuttal, this did not result in procedural unfairness that affected the decision. 爆料网AT held that there was no procedural unfairness to the Appellant as she had had the opportunity to file for leave to respond before 爆料网DT and she did not do so and that in any case, this did not affect the ultimate decision on receivability. 爆料网AT noted that only the Secretary-General, of which the Management Evaluation Unit forms part, has the authority to extend or waive the time limits for management evaluation and the...

    2020-爆料网AT-983, Webster

    爆料网AT held that the ISA JAB decision was correct in its finding that the appeal was receivable and not time-barred. However, 爆料网AT held that the Special Agreement and the resulting Staff Rules did not comply with the 爆料网AT Statute, which required a neutral first instance process, and that, accordingly, 爆料网AT was unable to exercise its jurisdiction as a second level tribunal. 爆料网AT remanded the matter to the JAB to ensure compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Special Agreement and Article 2(10) of the 爆料网AT Statute, specifying that the Appellant’s appeal should be reconsidered and...

    2020-爆料网AT-982, Asghar

    爆料网AT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, 爆料网AT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the 爆料网DT. 爆料网AT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

    2020-爆料网AT-981, Nouinou

    As a first preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. 爆料网AT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant’s own motions and 爆料网AT would not have asked her to disclose such information. 爆料网AT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, 爆料网AT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent’s observations on a motion. 爆料网AT held that its RoP did...

    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...

    2021-爆料网AT-1186, Shareef Muzyed

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied Mr. Mezyed’s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网RWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed’s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, 爆料网AT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the 爆料网RWA DT could not...

    2021-爆料网AT-1185, null 爆料网RWA

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网RWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. 爆料网AT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

    2021-爆料网AT-1184, Timothy Kennedy

    爆料网AT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. 爆料网AT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, 爆料网AT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

    2021-爆料网AT-1175, Bhaskar Palit

    As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant failed to discharge his burden of showing that the 爆料网DT Judgment was defective or identifying grounds for appeal. In addition, 爆料网AT held there was no basis for vacating the 爆料网DT Judgment. 爆料网AT held that the Appellant did not specifically contest the 爆料网DT’s findings on receivability and that receivability was not therefore an issue before it. 爆料网AT held that even if receivability was an issue before it, there was nothing provided by the Appellant to suggest that 爆料网DT erred in its...

    2021-爆料网AT-1172, Ravi Karkara

    The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the 爆料网DT’s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the 爆料网DT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The 爆料网AT further found that the 爆料网DT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara’s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the 爆料网DT’s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the 爆料网AT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The 爆料网AT also held that the sanction of...